traders who are deeply religious

Quote from stu:

I have no intention of sorting out the muddle you made, but will just pick out one or two of the main points you seem to be having difficulty trying to establish.
More...
Since you’re having difficulty with tautologies, deal with the logic of the statements themselves. We can return to a discussion of tautologies if you first deal with simple logic.

Fair enough?

My take on the direction so far:

Me: Any non-eternal thing requires a sufficient and adequate cause; from observation
Me: An eternal truth – or an eternal God – requires no cause; self-evident.
You: Positron pairs are uncaused.
Me: Please prove positron pairs are uncaused.
You: Let’s pretend I didn’t say that last little thing.
You: An eternal universe would not need God as a cause.
Me: Please prove the universe is eternal (unchanging).
You: Let’s pretend I didn’t say that last little thing.
Or
You: I’m still planning to prove these things to you later. (That’s trainr being hopeful.)

Me: a thing can not simultaneously be both existent and non-existent (as an example of an eternal truth).
You: (incomprehensible). Something like, it (God) has to if it (God) created the universe.
So again, can God do that or not? (Referring to the ability to exist and not-exist simultaneously.)
If It can't, It didn't create the universe.
More...
 You need to demonstrate that this is a mutually exclusive contradiction (or logical disjunction). I fail to see it.

You need to prove, or show that I’ve said, “Only things that are simultaneously existent and non-existent are eternal.” (Which in reality is the opposite of what I explicitly state, when I say that “eternal” is “unchanging.”)
 
Quote from stu:

Quotes from trainr...
"In the non-abstract, we can conceive of something called God."
"A god of which you can conceive isn't big enough to create the universe."
"So, no, a god that you create isn't worthy of worship".,,,


um... you seem to be doing a pretty good job of confirming God as not first cause, nor worth the worship.
More...
This is what I actually said. Notice the apparent and mistaken contradiction -- something which you're supposedly much too careful to allow -- goes up in smoke:

Any God of which you can conceive isn’t a God who is big enough to create the universe. You can only understand of him what he has chosen to reveal, and if you ignore what he has revealed, you’ll never know him. That’s why Jesus said, paraphrasing, “If anyone chooses to do his will he will know the truth.” Elsewhere, it’s written (paraphrasing), “Because they chose to reject him, God has sent them a powerful delusion.”

Again, a God big enough to create the universe can be known to the extent he reveals himself; otherwise, not at all.

This is harmonious with everything else I've said on the subject.
 
This is something I genuinely don't understand.

On the one hand, you have those who argue that God's existence and presence is eminently discernible, i.e. provable, through certain fields of study (like quantum physics) or certain arguments of philosophy (Aquinas' greatest hits etc).

On the other hand, you have those who argue that the whole program was set up as a "faith" thing, i.e. that hard evidence of God's presence is intentionally placed beyond the bounds of proof so that faith is 100% required. No 'cheating' so to speak.

What perplexes me is the preponderance of individuals who go back and forth between these mutually exclusive arguments. How can you beat the drum for one without gutting the other? And which one, if either, is correct (a matter of opinion, obviously, but...)?
 
Quote from trainr:

That's not really true.

The problem with proving christianity and the bible true is the method of analysis. People like yourself choose the scientific method, which is like using it to analyze whether to turn the key in the ignition each time you start your car -- it's highly inappropriate. And I bet you still start your car every day without subjecting it to this ridiculous examination, in spite of the fact that car bombs have been known to explode without a hypercritical analysis.
More...


If the above quote leads the post to which you refer, I must admit it only makes me more confused. This may well be an intellectual failing on my part; I did well on an IQ test taken at a very young age, but that could have been a fluke and I have not taken one since.

After perusing the line of debate in this most interesting thread, let me address another point of confusion if you would be so kind: I don't understand the implied connection between biblical authority and philosophical arguments for the existence of a first mover. I'm not being obtuse here, I really and truly don't see how the two subjects are causally connected.

For example, let us say it's written on my heart that we were created by a first mover. This conviction still does not tell me whether said mover was / is sentient, alone, perfect, personal, interested, or any combination of such. As Pascal stated in his wager, God is infinitely incomprehensible. That awesome description makes for a wide, indeed an infinite, variety of possible permutations, in which God-of-the-Bible is but one.

How do we know the universe was not created by a trio of imperfect deities taking their powers out for a spin, or trying to settle an argument. How do we know the universe is not the rough equivalent of some alien third grader's science fair experiment. How do we know Slartibartfast did not create the fjords. How do we know the principles of evolution and aristotelian non-contradiction did not give birth to all other principles. Or, as I asked on another thread, how do we know God isn't waiting for us on alpha centauri, with evolution his built-in means of helping us get from slime to prime-time. How do we know any process of evolution anywhere might not culminate in a fractious race of sentient and self-aware beings, with the cultural particulars of man's arrangement wholly arbitrary. None of these possibilities are ruled out by the acceptance of quantum physics as evidence for a first mover. So few possibilities are ruled out, in fact, that accepting the possibility of a first mover seems little removed from admitting we still have no idea how or why things got started.

Your dismissal of the scientific method (per your quote) also leaves me feeling bamboozled. I am even less certain what good quantum physics will do in a debate where the validity of the scientific method has been a priori tossed out.

Back to the bible and Christianity in particular. It would seem that if Simon Greenleaf et al want the world to rely on hard proof that Christianity is true, then members of his school should either submit that proof to the rigors of the scientific method or find a new-and-improved method, superior to the scientific one, by which to determine its merits. If the intellectual descendants of Mr. Greenleaf do not want to acknowledge the scientific method and have no means of replacing it, then perhaps they should stop talking about proof and start talking about the mysteries of faith again.

Which goes back to my earlier question, yet unanswered. Do you expect the average man in the street to believe as you do because scientific and philosophical proof compels him, or do you speak from an enlightened position of faith -- assuring others that your inner guidance tells you the correct thing, and they should take your transcendant experience at heart rather than questioning it.

These two are very different methods of evangelism I can assure you, and I still don't see how they can be logically conflated. In dismissing the scientific method on one hand yet speaking of quantum physics on the other, you appear to be conflating them regardless. Again, forgive me if I'm confused. Also note that the bible seems to come down on the side of divine inspiration, as there are scriptural verses which specifically and categorically deny universal access to truth.

1 Cor 2:14 "The man without the spirit does not accept the things that come from the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."
 
This is all rubbish... unless you understand the bible was written by mystics in the language of the subconscious ie: symbolism and allegory none of these arguments will be resolved... you are all using a different language to solve its mysteries... it was not meant to be read literally... mystics use a technique for planting seed thoughts in the subconscious that are more powerful than plain words, in fact some spiritual concepts defy the written language and there is no other recourse but to use this language... it is the same language you confront every night in your dreams... if you dont know the alphabet of this language how do you think you are going to understand a book like the bible?
 
(I deleted the body of your post because I think you are creating a quagmire of unnecessary complexity and inviting me to enter and then extricate myself. It’s not a pleasant thought. I mean that in as nice a way as I can.)

But, I appreciate your cautious and apparently sensitive language.

Forgive me, however, if I’m a little suspicious.

In order to know whether I can be of service, it would help if you’d answer a few questions.

If I could show you that Jesus is God and that you need to accept him, would you do so? (Your first gut-level answer is the one I would trust most, not the one conditional upon several qualifications.)

Why do you require the scientific method for analysis of this issue, rather than the “preponderance of the evidence?” (The latter is what we extend to our peers, the former (which in this context is really hypercriticism) to those we want to destroy, who are our enemies.)

Quote from archimedes:

Your dismissal of the scientific method (per your quote) also leaves me feeling bamboozled. I am even less certain what good quantum physics will do in a debate where the validity of the scientific method has been a priori tossed out.
More...
Do you use a toothbrush to paint a house? Why not? How can you -- a priori -- reject a valid instrument, used worldwide every day?

I think we would agree it devolves to appropriateness. Jesus was a man of history who claimed to be God. I’d first like to find out the merit of his claims. Unlike some religions, this particular one says it is the only way to God; as a matter of convenience, if this one is valid, we no longer have to consider any other.

Please answer this question as well: if Christianity is true, and the scientific method would – a priori – rule it out, would you want to know? Or, would you rather eliminate as a topic of consideration all things not embraced by it?

The car analogy I gave earlier: do you subject your car to hypercritical analysis each time you get in before you’re willing to turn the key? Why not? Isn’t it sometimes highly important that you know your car will get you where you need to go? Or are you like most people, and you apply the method of analysis that is most appropriate to the situation?

There is no way I know to apply the scientific method to the resurrection, and the entire Christian philosophy is entirely dependent upon it. Therefore, if it’s true, you need to use another method of analysis, namely the preponderance of the evidence.

That’s exactly what Simon Greenleaf used. He was an opponent of the Christian evidences, but applied the rules of evidence to analyze the biblical accounts.

(If you would read the rest of my posts in this thread, it would be helpful and I could refrain from repeating them. Many of your questions, I believe, are answered there.)

Have you examined the Christian evidences for the resurrection of Jesus?

Let me know when you have. I assume it will take some time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top