24 Jul 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe Bible is not evidence at all. The Bible consists of words on a page about which various claims are made by human beings.
Excellent, this helps clarify my thought.
I see now that bbarr's construal (3) is exactly the faith I had in mind, and that there's no need to include (1).
The will is implicated.
Platinga's argument is limited in that he assumes an 'absence' of evidence for belief. But the belief we are considering in this thread is based on evidence, i.e., th ...[text shortened]... be reasoned improbable, though not impossible - not enough to justify censure, IMO.
So by saying I do not accept what is printed on those pages as factual, as true, or as evidence admissible to prove the truth of an event, a thought, a statement, or a proposition, what I am denying threatens you who throw the Bible around as though it is true, a priori.
I hear what you're saying but I just don't care.
If truth is stranger than fiction, you must be truth!
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinI hear what you're saying but I just don't care.
The Bible is not evidence at all. The Bible consists of words on a page about which various claims are made by human beings.
So by saying I do not accept what is printed on those pages as factual, as true, or as evidence admissible to prove the truth of an event, a thought, a statement, or a proposition, what I am denying threatens you who throw the Bibl ...[text shortened]... you're saying but I just don't care.
If truth is stranger than fiction, you must be truth!
And that, of course, is your prerogative. I'll politely take my leave.
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by epiphinehas"I disagree"
[b]Your point is immaterial, if you will pardon the expression, and irrelevant as a rejection of Spinoza's concept. Whatever is the case, he says, is God.
I disagree.
Hence, the Bible is a bunch of nice poetry... Any interpretation of what is the case that posits a personal deity or one or two or three anthropomorphic entities is vanity, pure and simple.
I disagree.[/b]
Well, that's the first good answer I've seen.
You are entitled to disagree - entitled to believe what you want.
You are not entitled to affect any of my rights, however, as a consequence of your beliefs.
That is why the law supports your freedom to practice your religion, whatever it is.
The law also supports my freedom to ignore your beliefs and actually forbids the State from establishing your beliefs or anyone else's as the nation's "official" religion. We can have birds, flowers, special days, but we cannot have a State religion -- we are NOT a Christian country - we are a country where you find a lot of Christians, however unfortunate and obnoxious a fact that may be.
The law does not recognize that the words printed on paper that you appear to worship are in fact what you say they are or mean what you say they mean.
That is why a Republican US District Judge in a very intelligently reasoned decision, rejected assertions that Creationism was entitled to status of a "scientific discipline." He was ruling, in short, that our laws do not allow the State to accept the truth of the ontological argument, because it isn't the truth in the same way that we can predict the effects of VX nerve gas, among other things. I'll discuss the VX gas in detail below.
The judge ruled that way because there are also other books with words printed on paper that make very similar claims to be the word of God handed down or revealed to some human who wrote the words down and published them.
Why isn't the Book of Mormon as authoritatively the word of God as the New Testament? It says it is -- Mormons say it is. I bet other Christian sects don't agree.
Why isn't the Koran the revealed word of God? I expect people of other faiths would say it isn't.
How is one to decide which book is the real deal here? Or whether any of them are or even could be?
One thing is clear to me: you cannot use the words in these books as a truth that is assumed up front -- not even the effect of VX nerve gas is assumed to be true, it was TESTED and MEASURED and the results confirm that it does what it does. And I'll tell you what it does in moment.
You cannot throw words from these religious texts as assertions or refutations of other statements that do not assume their own truth in such a manner but are instead based on a rational methodology by which we confirm or deny that our statements are either true or false.
Reasoning is a process -- scripture is a book. Reasoning need not be circular -- if it is, then it is logically invalid.
Rather, reliance on the assumed truth of words on a page translated multiple times over 20 centuries and more based on the assumption that it is true because it is so -- now that's circular reasoning.
Thus, I can accept both the validity and the truth of certain statements about the structure and effects of exposure to certain chemical substances. If I expose myself to massive quantities of Benzene, for example, I am much more likely to develop Leukemia or Multiple Myeloma than if I am not so exposed. Note I did not say I can prove this; I said I can accept this as true until some other set of data comes along to give me a different answer.
But I also accept that it is a certainty if I consume more than a certain dose of toxic substances, I will, in fact, die. This is not a matter of belief, conjecture or opinion, it is a demonstrable fact and the result is one that proves out true each and every time. No one can live if they are exposed to certain doses of certain chemicals.
For example: take out a US penny. Look at the back. See the Lincoln Memorial in bas-relief? Look closely, use a magnifying glass, and see that there is a representation of the statue of Lincoln visible inside the image of the memorial on the back of the penny.
Do you see how small that figure is?
Now use your powers of reasoning, or use an instrument to confirm, just how small the ear has to be on that figure inside the memorial on the back of the penny.
Here is a fact that can be proven again and again and again. If anyone doubts this, I'd be happy if they would step forward and volunteer to expose themselves to what I'm about to describe as that fact: a single droplet of liquid VX nerve gas half the size of one ear of the figure inside the memorial on the back of the penny is enough to kill a person in 15 minutes.
Every time.
No exceptions.
Now, then. Have I clarified some things for you all? Do you see why I started this thread?
Only Epiphinehas gave the correct answer as to why folks believe Jesus was divine -- it is because he believes so.
But that basis regarding whether, in fact, Jesus was or is divine cannot be verified as can the assertion that a very tiny dose of VX nerve gas will, every time, kill a person exposed to it.
And that is the root of everything. From that point I can use my reasoning and still accept concepts of spirituality and transcendence irrespective of the conflicting claims of competing religious texts and their adherents.
That is why I admire Spinoza, even if I do not believe he found "the answer" as he thought he did. I admire that he was willing to reject the hide-bound rote repetition of texts and submission to authority interpreting and commenting on them that was the Jewish tradition in his time to go out on his own to try to find another way to understand the meaning of life, the universe, and everything.
Spirituality is a very individualized process, a journey that each person must take for themself. Just as no one can live your life for you, or altogether protect you from life's tragic and unfortunate experiences or the consequences of your own choices, no one and no book can take that journey for you.
Those that claim otherwise and assert that only they speak with the voice of God or can interpret properly and correctly the indisputable truth of their particular religious text are merely worshiping ink and paper and by doing so they are also trying to restrict individual rights and the freedom to think, question, discover, or determine for one's self the meaning of one's own life.
24 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Scriabinwe are NOT a Christian country
"I disagree"
Well, that's the first good answer I've seen.
You are entitled to disagree - entitled to believe what you want.
You are not entitled to affect any of my rights, however, as a consequence of your beliefs.
That is why the law supports your freedom to practice your religion, whatever it is.
The law also supports my freedom to igno n, discover, or determine for one's self the meaning of one's own life.
I agree.
That is why a Republican US District Judge in a very intelligently reasoned decision, rejected assertions that Creationism was entitled to status of a "scientific discipline."
I don't often applaud republicans, but in this case I make an exception.
Why isn't the Book of Mormon as authoritatively the word of God as the New Testament? It says it is -- Mormons say it is. I bet other Christian sects don't agree.
You have every right to disparage a faith you don't believe in, but at least get your facts straight: Mormons aren't Christians.
How is one to decide which book is the real deal here? Or whether any of them are or even could be?
Like you say, by testing them.
Rather, reliance on the assumed truth of words on a page translated multiple times over 20 centuries and more based on the assumption that it is true because it is so -- now that's circular reasoning.
I hope you're not suggesting that the NT isn't a reliably preserved document.
Over 5500 copies of the NT exist in the original Greek, all written within 100 years of the original. By comparison, there are 49 copies of Aristotle written within 1400 years of the original. By every standard, the original Greek NT is extremely well-preserved; all copies in 99.5% agreement.
But that basis regarding whether, in fact, Jesus was or is divine cannot be verified as can the assertion that a very tiny dose of VX nerve gas will, every time, kill a person exposed to it.
No, but I don't know of anyone who claims that the Bible is "proof" of Christ's divinity either. The Bible is "evidence" of such a claim's veracity, but not "proof".
Spirituality is a very individualized process, a journey that each person must take for themself. Just as no one can live your life for you, or altogether protect you from life's tragic and unfortunate experiences or the consequences of your own choices, no one and no book can take that journey for you.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I would also add that a closed mind is a great hindrance on such a spiritual journey of discovery.
...by doing so they are also trying to restrict individual rights and the freedom to think, question, discover, or determine for one's self the meaning of one's own life.
I've been an atheist seeking spiritual answers most of my life, and I find this claim to be far from accurate. The Christians I talked to voiced in no uncertain terms simply what the truth of the Bible's core elements were, doing so never to impinge on my right to think for myself, but to convey for my understanding and consideration the Christian faith. My experience as an atheist seeker was that the world was a buffet of spiritual truths, and Christianity was just one of many that I could dish onto my plate - should I so choose.
You would do well to rid yourself of this idea that Bible-thumpers have any tyrannical intentions, IMO.
24 Jul 08
5 edits
Mormons aren't Christians
explain. Now, it is true I have not read the entire book of Mormon, I only skimmed it. It involves Christ, who Mormons have told me showed up in the US of A and got them going. But then, I skimmed War and Peace and all I can tell you is that it involves Russia.
Like you say, by testing them.
Oh, you mean like in chemistry class? I can precipitate the truth out of them? Or maybe saponify one or two and that will do? What if all I want to do is wash my hands of them? How do I "test" them, exactly? Inquiring minds want to know ....
I hope you're not suggesting that the NT isn't a reliably preserved document.
Hope springs eternal, etc. I'm suggesting exactly that -- the NT that exists today is anyone's guess, translation wise. For all you know, the word "celibate" really meant, in the Greek of the time, "celebrate." I can hear a very small number of screams as not too many who had to swear to celibacy bothered to look that word up either, being too busy rogering mistresses or buggering alter boys.
the Bible is "proof" of Christ's divinity either.
Then why accept this divinity business as though we're talking about something that is the case? I say it can't be the case -- not in the universe I live in -- (no one comes back from being dead more than the time the human brain can be deprived of oxygen and still function after being given CPR and waking up again. Three days? Way too long), so it didn't happen - period, full stop. Either he didn't die at all, or it was someone else who walked out of there. Show me wherein I err?
I would also add that a closed mind is a great hindrance on such a spiritual journey of discovery.
My closed mind is more like a steel trap -- show me the money and I'll believe. Prove it to me. Otherwise, take it outside.
As for Bible thumpers having an excessive will to power, gee, where would I get that idea? From history or just this Administration?
BTW, as an outsider, what do you really think of the human race?
You are now being so dense light is bending around you.
See http://www.kingdomcoming.com/
"Journalist Michelle Goldberg has been covering the intersection of politics and ideology for years. Before the 2004 election, and during the ensuing months when many Americans were trying to understand how an administration marked by cronyism, disregard for the national budget, and poorly disguised self-interest had been reinstated, Goldberg traveled through the heartland of a country in the grips of a fevered religious radicalism: the America of our time. From the classroom to the mega-church to the federal court, she saw how the growing influence of dominionism—the doctrine that Christians have the right to rule nonbelievers—is threatening the foundations of democracy.
"In Kingdom Coming, Goldberg demonstrates how an increasingly bellicose fundamentalism is gaining traction throughout our national life, taking us on a tour of the parallel right-wing evangelical culture that is buoyed by Republican political patronage. Deep within the red zones of a divided America, we meet military veterans pledging to seize the nation in Christ’s name, perfidious congressmen courting the confidence of neo-confederates and proponents of theocracy, and leaders of federally funded programs offering Jesus as the solution to the country’s social problems."
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinOnly Epiphinehas gave the correct answer as to why folks believe Jesus was divine -- it is because he believes so. ----scriabin-------
"I disagree"
Well, that's the first good answer I've seen.
You are entitled to disagree - entitled to believe what you want.
You are not entitled to affect any of my rights, however, as a consequence of your beliefs.
That is why the law supports your freedom to practice your religion, whatever it is.
The law also supports my freedom to igno ...[text shortened]... n, discover, or determine for one's self the meaning of one's own life.
Not entirely true. Whilst I would agree that there is no proof of Jesus's divinity , I think there are some reasons and some thinking that points in that direction. Ultimately , it does come down to faith based on some evidence. However one could also make a case that Jesus was potty as well.
In the end reasoning won't get us all the way there . It has to be revealed by God. When Simon Peter says " you are the Son of the Living God " Jesus says he is blessed because this has been revealed to him by his Father.
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinWhat you don't know is how God can become real in terms of the Spirit. It's only when you figure out that all that Holy Spirit stuff in the Bible can actually be experienced that the real fun begins.
I think the universe has better things to do and be than to concern itself with me or, indeed, any individual on this speck of dust and water -- one among perhaps trillions of similar worlds throughout a vastness that our minds cannot hold, even in thought. Thus, we shrink it down to manageable levels by inventing for ourselves coping mechanisms, such as p ...[text shortened]...
But I don't rule it out, because as I'm fond of saying, what we don't know, we don't know.
When God knocks at your door he won't be some theoretical idea anymore , he'll be something more pressing than that. For me the key point was when I realised that I would prefer God not to exist than exist because of the huge implications of him existing.
The main contention of Christianity is that God can indeed be known and known intimately . However , this is not knowing "about" God or "knowing " he exists.
25 Jul 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI want you to know that it is perfectly all right to have an unexpressed thought. In your case I even recommend it.
What you don't know is how God can become real in terms of the Spirit. It's only when you figure out that all that Holy Spirit stuff in the Bible can actually be experienced that the real fun begins.
When God knocks at your door he won't be some theoretical idea anymore , he'll be something more pressing than that. For me the key point was when I r ...[text shortened]... nd known intimately . However , this is not knowing "about" God or "knowing " he exists.
Go back to what I said earlier about chemistry -- I know this is useless to say to you because while you have a soft heart, it merely matches your head.
If what you say is the best your powers of reasoning can do, I better stop using words of more than one syllable as your intellect appears rivaled only by garden tools.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
25 Jul 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonCould you please clarify. Is this an accurate description of when the burden of proof applies: when there is an existential claim and the claim has insufficient evidence; or, when there is a denial of an existential claim and the denial has insufficient evidence"?
[b]…Then the issue is whether these two are equivalent:
- a denial of an existential claim which has sufficient evidence
- a denial of an existential claim and this denial has insufficient evidence.
In what way do you think these two are different? When would one be true and the other false? .…
I was not trying to imply that the two ...[text shortened]... according to my criterion IF they have no proof (and I would claim they would have no proof).[/b]
You prevaricate on this topic, and I think you want to answer yes but without the implication that the existential attitude of a claim is irrelevant.
Not according to my criterion IF they have no proof (and I would claim they would have no proof).
Then, essentially, the burden of proof has no practical value. According to you, it applies when the claimant has no proof, so the burden of proof is impossible to fulfill.
25 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Scriabinthe NT that exists today is anyone's guess, translation wise. For all you know, the word "celibate" really meant, in the Greek of the time, "celebrate."
[b]Mormons aren't Christians
explain. Now, it is true I have not read the entire book of Mormon, I only skimmed it. It involves Christ, who Mormons have told me showed up in the US of A and got them going. But then, I skimmed War and Peace and all I can tell you is that it involves Russia.
Like you say, by testing them.
Oh, you mean l programs offering Jesus as the solution to the country’s social problems."[/b]
I see you haven't spent much time studying the Greek NT. If you're ever interested in "testing" the Bible's veracity (I'm guessing you'd prefer ingesting VX nerve gas), studying the original Greek is a great place to start.
Then why accept this divinity business as though we're talking about something that is the case? I say it can't be the case -- not in the universe I live in... so it didn't happen - period, full stop. Either he didn't die at all, or it was someone else who walked out of there. Show me wherein I err?
You are speaking from experience, and your experience tells you that people don't rise from the dead. Where you err is substituting your limited experience for all that can ever be known. If you did know everything, then your conclusion would be logical. But, since you don't know everything, your conclusion is illogical. If you could acknowledge the possibility of Jesus rising from the dead, then you might be able to approach the evidence objectively. As it stands, your presuppositions prevent that from happening.
From the classroom to the mega-church to the federal court, she saw how the growing influence of dominionism—the doctrine that Christians have the right to rule nonbelievers—is threatening the foundations of democracy
And, of course, you will also assume that this so-called "rise of Christian nationalism" is supported by scripture... 😴
25 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinIn response to this, I'm confident that knightmeister would join me in pronouncing a blessing upon you, Scriabin, whether you like it or not.
I want you to know that it is perfectly all right to have an unexpressed thought. In your case I even recommend it.
Go back to what I said earlier about chemistry -- I know this is useless to say to you because while you have a soft heart, it merely matches your head.
If what you say is the best your powers of reasoning can do, I better stop using words of more than one syllable as your intellect appears rivaled only by garden tools.
God bless you!
25 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K…Could you please clarify. Is this an accurate description of when the burden of proof applies: when there is an existential claim and the claim has insufficient evidence; or, when there is a denial of an existential claim and the denial has insufficient evidence"? …
Could you please clarify. Is this an accurate description of when the burden of proof applies: when there is an existential claim and the claim has insufficient evidence; or, when there is a denial of an existential claim and the denial has insufficient evidence"?
You prevaricate on this topic, and I think you want to answer yes but without the implicat ...[text shortened]... applies when the claimant has no proof, so the burden of proof is impossible to fulfill.
Yes. Although I see no point in making the syntax unnecessarily complex by stating the same proposition in the slightly more complex way.
… You prevaricate on this topic, and I think you want to answer yes but without the implication that the existential attitude of a claim is irrelevant. …
No, I am not being prevaricate. I just don’t ever like things stated in an unnecessarily complex way and I like everything stated in a consistent way.
So we agree that I believe:
the burden of proof applies:
(1) when there is an existential claim and the claim has insufficient evidence.
And
(2) when there is a denial of an existential claim and the denial has insufficient evidence because that existential claim already has sufficient evidence.
Now, you claim that it logically follows from (1) and (2) that the “existential part” of the claim is irrelevant -but how? -I mean, how does it logically follow from (1) and (2) that the “existential part” of the claim is irrelevant? I don’t see any logical connection -so can you elaborate on this and show be how one can be deduced from the other?
… Not according to my criterion IF they have no proof (and I would claim they would have no proof).
Then, essentially, the burden of proof has no practical value. According to you, it applies when the claimant has no proof, so the burden of proof is impossible to fulfil.…
There are two possibilities here:
Either the claimant currently has no proof but can get proof because there is proof to be had, in which case the burden of proof is possible to fulfil but, until the claimant gets that proof, according to my criterion, he cannot give rational justification for his existential claim.
Or, the claimant currently has no proof and cannot get proof because there is no proof to be had, in which case, I would agree that the burden of proof is impossible to fulfil, in which case, according to my criterion, he cannot EVER give rational justification for his existential claim.
Either way, the burden of proof has “practical value“ because its practical propose is NOT to find the proof of the existential claim but, rather, its practical propose is to judge at any point in time and given the evidence (or the lack of it) at that point in time, who is rational in their claim and who is not.
26 Jul 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasActually you are the one who reasons from assumed premises.
[b]the NT that exists today is anyone's guess, translation wise. For all you know, the word "celibate" really meant, in the Greek of the time, "celebrate."
I see you haven't spent much time studying the Greek NT. If you're ever interested in "testing" the Bible's veracity (I'm guessing you'd prefer ingesting VX nerve gas), studying the original G ...[text shortened]... is so-called "rise of Christian nationalism" is supported by scripture... 😴[/b]
Whether or not the words we have today are the same as the Greek of the time, the truth of those words do no t lie in there mere existence on the page.
Human hands wrote them -- therefore, something more as evidence for the truth of them is wanting.
But you assume their truth, a priori.
You also use the ontological argument constantly to support the completely insane concept that we can assume that since we don't know everything, some really crazy ideas are still possibly true.
Your coming back from the dead assumption is this sort of nutcake idea.
You say that because I don't now everything I cannot deny the existence or possibility of the supernatural. I also deny the possibility of maic and I don't believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. But what do I know?
Well, what I know is what I learned in CPR class -- after 6 minutes without oxygen, unless the person has been cooled down to about 45 degrees or so, the brain cannot be brought back from the dead in humans. You can bring the person back to life after 6 minutes, even at room temperature or above, but you are bringing back a severely injured brain capable of only a vegetative existence. Some people have been revived after drowning, dying, by being immersed in very cold water and their brains were not injured seriously after more than 6 minutes without oxygen. Very rare, this sort of thing.
But what you are saying is that it is possible to bring back even one of the sailors who died n the early 1800s and whose frozen corpses, perfectly preserved and undecayed, were discovered near Hudson Bay, where they ship lay at anchor while an infectious disease killed many of the crew.
Sorry to have to tell you that nothing in this universe is capable of bringing one of those bodies back to life absent the a priori assumption that either magic or the supernatural is possible.
Such an asumption is, in my view, irrational -- nuts, crazy, etc.
It is a shame that one with such apparent powers of thought uses them like a fly trapped in a bottle, ignoring the world outside that bottle and assuming that only that between the covers of this book of yours describes that which is the case.
But that is what people so afraid of facing reality tend to do.