Irony

Originally posted by windmill
But it is.Science is what the individual or group choose it to be.Just like life i guess it's what you make of it....however sometimes other factors also come into that equation.

Science is only what the group wantchoose it to be in the realm of ID. Elsewhere we rely on data

Originally posted by vistesd
... Is it safe to assume, Col, that your understanding of Biblical inerrancy (non-contradiction) does not extend to historical anaomalies in the text—that is, that you are not a “historicist-literalist?”

Historical tests are always interesting since they were not aways dry reports of the facts. I generally believe the histories as read. But histories do not provide moral truths - which are more important. I guess I agree with the historical-grammatical method of interpretation - but I need to learn more about the different methods. And any historical anaomalies that are can not be resolved are simple unresolved and probably are not significant.

Originally posted by Nemesio
...
But because both come from Scripture, they both must be true. And yet they cannot
both be true because that would be irrational.
...Nemesio

They are not both Scriptural truths because they are contradictory. The purpose of my epistemology is to determine what I can consider "justified true belief". I take Scripture as the grounds of truth since it is God's revelation of his knowledge to man. I use the law of contradiction to test for contradictory propositions since God can not contradict himself. When any statements appear to contradict, I look for the cause, what is the error.

There are many reason for not correctly translating the text - sometimes it simply not a truth God desires I know. Was Jesus born in the winter or the spring - don't know - don't care. Did Jesus' death atone for sin? - an important question - better figure that one out.

Did John want us to know exactly when Jesus was crucified, or did he want us to understand that Jesus was the passover lamb?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Coletti, are you working on the exercise that I suggested?

Are you interested in doing this exercise or not?

I'll give you another hint. Your goal is to deduce B from (A and Not-A), such deduction to hold for all propositions A and B. Go.

Originally posted by vistesd
My first axiom is: “The world is everything that is the case.” I stole that from Wittgenstein, and I’m not sure that I mean what he meant—what I mean to do is to exclude the supernatural (strictly defined as something external to the natural order) and secret de-coder rings. As you pointed out, I am probably ineligible to ever get my ring anyway…

EDIT: ...[text shortened]... Advaita Vedanta, Zen, Taoism--though it finds expressions in all the major religious traditions.

"The world is everything that is the case."

Sort of like saying - "it is what it is" - is that a "zen" sort of thing?

Don't worry - sometimes getting the ring takes a while. 🙂

And you get credit for doing what hew people here have the guts to do - actually say what your axioms and/or philosophy is. There are a few trolls around here who have never bothered to try - so kudos to you.

Originally posted by Coletti
They are not both Scriptural truths because they are contradictory...Did John want us to know exactly when Jesus was crucified, or did he want us to understand that Jesus was the passover lamb?

Okay!

Now we are getting somewhere!

So, you will concede that apparently 'factual' accounts can be metaphorical.
That is, the fact the St John's account does not reconcile with the Synoptics is
easily explained by the fact that St John was not giving a factual account, but
his metaphorical interpretation of it.

Would you agree with what I just wrote?

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are you interested in doing this exercise or not?

I'll give you another hint. Your goal is to deduce B from (A and Not-A), such deduction to hold for all propositions A and B. Go.

Honestly it's not high on my todo list. But I'll try to look it up. I think it can be demonstrated with truth tables and/or predicate logic rules of inference. It's basically trivial, but it makes for interesting discussions about some forms of logic and their rules.

Originally posted by Coletti
But I'll try to look it up.

Forget it.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Okay!

Now we are getting somewhere!

So, you will concede that apparently 'factual' accounts can be metaphorical.
That is, the fact the St John's account does not reconcile with the Synoptics is
easily explained by the fact that St John was not giving a factual account, but
his metaphorical interpretation of it.

Would you agree with what I just wrote?

Nemesio

That's reasonable. Metaphors are not literal truths.

Jesus said "I am the bread".

God is love.

Both are literally true, but neither is a literal truth. They are metaphorical truths. If they were literals truths, they would be categorical errors. Sometimes it's hard to tell if something is a literal or a metaphorical truth. John's account may be a a case - although its not clear cut. Johns account may be demonstrating a metaphorical truth - Jesus is the passover lamb.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Forget it.

Sorry - some things are more important.

Originally posted by Coletti
"The world is everything that is the case."

Sort of like saying - "it is what it is" - is that a "zen" sort of thing?

Don't worry - sometimes getting the ring takes a while. 🙂

And you get credit for doing what hew people here have the guts to do - actually say what your axioms and/or philosophy is. There are a few trolls around here who have never bothered to try - so kudos to you.

I probably like it ‘cause I read some Zen into it. I think Wittgenstein simply meant to define his use of the word “world.”

The exercise I want to do is to lay out some assumptions that seem reasonable to me, and then see how they apply—rather than simply saying: “Well, here’s Buddhism, here’s what the Kabbalists have to say,” etc., which is pretty much what I’ve done. It’s good groundwork, but… I need to sit down with my notebook and go to work on it, see where it takes me…

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't know why I even try.

Now here might be a worthwhile exercise: to find out why you keep on trying.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Now here might be a worthwhile exercise: to find out why you keep on trying.

God has put it on my heart to persist in extending a helping hand.

Originally posted by Coletti
I generally believe the histories as read. But histories do not provide moral truths - which are more important. I guess I agree with the historical-grammatical method of interpretation - but I need to learn more about the different methods. And any historical anaomalies that are can not be resolved are simple unresolved and probably are not significant.

Ah! Here we go.

So, will you concede that someone could entirely disbelieve the story of Jonah (say)
as a history, but embrace wholly its moral message and still be a Christian.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Ah! Here we go.

So, will you concede that someone could entirely disbelieve the story of Jonah (say)
as a history, but embrace wholly its moral message and still be a Christian.

Nemesio

Here comes the PPPP.