Logic from a Christian perspective...

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

Re: Logic from a Christian purspective...

Why? I don't see how belief in Jesus would counteract the emotion of severe guilt.

i did too feel that her explanation of that part was rather week.. but maybe the idea that "well, if god was willing to die for me, then i guess i wasnt too bad" might help you deal with the guilt a little bit.
not saying i believe her ideas.. but just feeding the idea.

 

[Anthile]

I feel cheated. There is neither "logic" nor "Christianity" here. Clearly, Satan dwells within this pages.


PS: For the love of God, I changed the thread title...

 

[Cognisant]

Satan dwells within this pages.

Noooo, don't be silly.

To be a God means having no limits, which automatically kills the idea of ad infinitum. To think that God can not create himself is to put a limit, which means he is not God because he has a limit.

Ooh good answer, I think we're going to have fun

To that end, next question, why do we need god? (what is god's purpose)
Granted I can't discredit the possibility of a god's existence, but can you give a sensible reason as to why one should assume god's existence? And even if you can (and defend it) then the next question would be, by what reason should one believe in a god, i.e. is a belief in god at all beneficial (personally I don't believe so, with ample reason).

I believe in reincarnation, and I also believe what you said about getting ready for your next life. Try not to get emotionally attached. Become a stoic:
"Let nothing cleave to you that will cause you suffering when it is torn away."

I was suppose to help people survive the RFID, but currently I think I failed in that aspect. If the RFID comes mandatory, I will probably commit suicide and forego starvation. Maybe I will get to design my body next time, perhaps go to for a different world... much different then this boring world..

And people say nihilists are dark & depressing...
But then I suppose a devout belief in an afterlife would have to be sourced from the death drive, i.e. motivated by your fear of death you have re-imagined it as something positive, and by thusly negating your fears you now believe yourself to have attained some manner of enlightenment, which I doubt.

Perhaps I would be a "demon" to suggest this, but would you consider a belief that is more life affirming? Yes it is nihilism, but not as you know it.

 

[Starfruit M.E.]

"Ha, of course the true test remains in whether that person truly believes that Jesus died for their sin. If he did, then he will go to heaven, as it was stated."

No. The Bible is very clear that your supposed to turn from sin when you accept salvation. Salvation is not an excuse to sin. Like John said, "Repent and be baptized". Repent is a turning from sin (including murder). If you did not repent, you were never saved, and never really wanted to be. As another verse said, "he who starts to plow but then looks back is not fit for the kingdom of heaven". So even if you do repent, but then decide that you want to go back to sinning, your not saved.

 

[Enola.Grey]

Granted I can't discredit the possibility of a god's existence, but can you give a sensible reason as to why one should assume god's existence? And even if you can (and defend it) then the next question would be, by what reason should one believe in a god, i.e. is a belief in god at all beneficial (personally I don't believe so, with ample reason).

I do not know...

And people say nihilists are dark & depressing...
But then I suppose a devout belief in an afterlife would have to be sourced from the death drive, i.e. motivated by your fear of death you have re-imagined it as something positive, and by thusly negating your fears you now believe yourself to have attained some manner of enlightenment, which I doubt.

I am an astral projectionist, not in the sense of a learned projectionist, but someone who was born with the ability. It is because of this that I am very sure of an after life. It s also because of Astral projection that I am able to verify that Christian teachings to be true...

Perhaps I would be a "demon" to suggest this, but would you consider a belief that is more life affirming? Yes it is nihilism, but not as you know it.

Do not consider your self to be a demon for asking questions. I hate that "Christians" have blindly accepted the faith with no knowledge, especially when the bible it self dictates against it.Listen up, you who call yourself Christians!

Psa 32:9 Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.

Job 28:28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

2Co 3:9|18 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Real Christianity is based of logical thinking and scientific fact.

"Ha, of course the true test remains in whether that person truly believes that Jesus died for their sin. If he did, then he will go to heaven, as it was stated."

No. The Bible is very clear that your supposed to turn from sin when you accept salvation. Salvation is not an excuse to sin. Like John said, "Repent and be baptized". Repent is a turning from sin (including murder). If you did not repent, you were never saved, and never really wanted to be. As another verse said, "he who starts to plow but then looks back is not fit for the kingdom of heaven". So even if you do repent, but then decide that you want to go back to sinning, your not saved.

Precisely. If you do not, then it would negate your previous thoughts, and you will remember them specifically when you die and your life is displayed before you.

 

[fullerene]

Real Christianity is based of logical thinking and scientific fact.

ok, I know I said I'd stop pestering you, but i can't let this go by, ethically.

If Eph 2:8 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God"

and Heb 11:1 says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

then you contradict. This is almost a syllogism, the most basic and widely accepted standard of logic, saying that salvation cannot come through things that are seen. Since science deals with the realm of things that are seen, and logic uses syllogisms, then using logic to think about Christianity means that scientific fact(? what do you even mean by that, anyway?) isn't a part of it.

I'm obviously not going to argue with your Scripture. Wisdom, understanding, and thought are praiseworthy things and belong in every Christian life. But I would be more inclined (in light of the above passages) to think that it's better off that you don't see the things you believe, because that would, by definition, eliminate faith--which is the center for salvation.

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

ok, I know I said I'd stop pestering you, but i can't let this go by, ethically.

If Eph 2:8 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God"

and Heb 11:1 says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

then you contradict. This is almost a syllogism, the most basic and widely accepted standard of logic, saying that salvation cannot come through things that are seen. Since science deals with the realm of things that are seen, and logic uses syllogisms, then using logic to think about Christianity means that scientific fact(? what do you even mean by that, anyway?) isn't a part of it.

I'm obviously not going to argue with your Scripture. Wisdom, understanding, and thought are praiseworthy things and belong in every Christian life. But I would be more inclined (in light of the above passages) to think that it's better off that you don't see the things you believe, because that would, by definition, eliminate faith--which is the center for salvation.

umm.. faith means more than just "blind belief" - it has many meanings. might i remind you that the bible, aslo, wasnt written in english, and many of the words may have been more accurately translated as a different english word.

also, faith may be based around logic and thinking.

faith may be meaning, instead of "blind following" - loyalty.

 

[kantor1003]

Re: Logic from a Christian purspective...

I know the truth, and the stupidity of man.

I really find it intriguing that almost every self out there believe they know "the truth".
That seems like a fairly illogical assumption to me. Tell me, in what way doesn't that constitute ignorance?
It is almost like you perceive yourself as "limitless" as knowing "the truth" would require limitless knowledge.
Maybe god has joined our forum?

Btw. you are aware of the fact that many would see you belonging in "the stupidity of man" category as well? What makes them wrong and you right?
Or do you put yourself in the same category as them? I can't imagine the ego allowing that though.. especially since you know "the truth"

 

[Enola.Grey]

ok, I know I said I'd stop pestering you, but i can't let this go by, ethically.

If Eph 2:8 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God"

and Heb 11:1 says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

then you contradict. This is almost a syllogism, the most basic and widely accepted standard of logic, saying that salvation cannot come through things that are seen. Since science deals with the realm of things that are seen, and logic uses syllogisms, then using logic to think about Christianity means that scientific fact(? what do you even mean by that, anyway?) isn't a part of it.

I'm obviously not going to argue with your Scripture. Wisdom, understanding, and thought are praiseworthy things and belong in every Christian life. But I would be more inclined (in light of the above passages) to think that it's better off that you don't see the things you believe, because that would, by definition, eliminate faith--which is the center for salvation.

You can believe and know of the existence of God. However, will this automatically make you have faith that he will save you? No, no it does not. You have to have faith that Jesus saved you. You also can not see the angels at work, so you are left with faith to believe that they are at work. This scripture means that you do not know everything exactly, so it is better to have faith. This is where faith is.

I love speaking with you. You test my knowledge and it is through this that my knowledge is tempered...

 

[fullerene]

umm.. faith means more than just "blind belief" - it has many meanings. might i remind you that the bible, aslo, wasnt written in english, and many of the words may have been more accurately translated as a different english word.

also, faith may be based around logic and thinking.

faith may be meaning, instead of "blind following" - loyalty.

Yes, in Hebrews 11 the word for see is βλέπω, speaking of perception through the senses. The other keywords in the verse are "assurance" and conviction (follow the links for sites to a lexicon on that greek word). I'm not saying there's no evidence for it, so I certainly wouldn't call it "blind", but neither would I call it "visible". What s/he was talking about was using astral projection to verify Chrsitian claims, which fits the Greek definition for the word translated "see" (as in, not-seen) almost exactly.

You're absolutely right, that oftentimes things may be accurately translated as more than one english word, but I've been burned a few times by adults using that as an excuse to justify... whatever it is that they want to justify, so I eventually started looking them up myself, very often, to guard against it.


I think there was a time, when I was younger, that I would have jumped at the chance to see these things, were I given the choice. Of course, I eagerly await the day when I'll see anyway. But before the day comes when the sun won't even be needed, because God will be the light--over which I have no control--I think I would pass up the opportunity. Some things are just better left un-rushed.

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

Re: Logic from a Christian purspective...

I read from Bible Gateway and the free downloadable program e-Sword. Maybe I should look up Greek, but I am not that interested in being a historian on the subject. I just take it at face value and apply scholastic thinking to the subject. I usually go into depth more if I seem to have hit a road block in my thinking.

lol thats funny, you have what is meant to be a tool of exogesis.. but you dont realize it.
in esword.. click on the number to the upper right of a word.. and then in the bottom box, it will give you the greek word, and all its possibly meanings.. - a definition - which is much more suiting than the one word written in the bible that was used to replace it.

 

[Jennywocky]

ok, I know I said I'd stop pestering you, but i can't let this go by, ethically.

If Eph 2:8 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God"

and Heb 11:1 says "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

then you contradict. This is almost a syllogism, the most basic and widely accepted standard of logic, saying that salvation cannot come through things that are seen. Since science deals with the realm of things that are seen, and logic uses syllogisms, then using logic to think about Christianity means that scientific fact(? what do you even mean by that, anyway?) isn't a part of it.I'm obviously not going to argue with your Scripture. Wisdom, understanding, and thought are praiseworthy things and belong in every Christian life. But I would be more inclined (in light of the above passages) to think that it's better off that you don't see the things you believe, because that would, by definition, eliminate faith--which is the center for salvation.

umm.. faith means more than just "blind belief" - it has many meanings. might i remind you that the bible, aslo, wasnt written in english, and many of the words may have been more accurately translated as a different english word. also, faith may be based around logic and thinking. faith may be meaning, instead of "blind following" - loyalty.

<OLD LINE>Well, have you looked up the two verses in Greek to see if the word "faith" there is comparable? It's a nice hypothesis and the next step is to look and confirm/undermine your hunch. It certainly can't stop where you stopped, or you've shown nothing.</OLD LINE> Well aren't you guys busy? Here I was posting, and you were already looking it up!

As for me, I don't see logic as faith. (instead we can have faith in logic -- which uses a consistent rules system to determine what must be true by nature vs false -- vs some sort of divine revelation, which does not use logic but just make assertions about reality that must be accepted as premises.)

Likewise, I don't think faith has to be completely blind. We have faith in things that to us seem to be true... usually because we have evaluated them and found them worth believing in, enough to account for the blind spots and "take that leap" into the dark.


And if you KNOW something, then it is no longer faith. Fortunately for those who want to have faith, we can never know anything 100% so some smidgen of faith must always be exerted.

... oh fudge, by now my entire post is probably obsolete, I'll let you guys wring it out.

 

[Enola.Grey]

Re: Logic from a Christian purspective...

I really find it intriguing that almost every self out there believe they know "the truth".
That seems like a fairly illogical assumption to me. Tell me, in what way doesn't that constitute ignorance?
It is almost like you perceive yourself as "limitless" as knowing "the truth" would require limitless knowledge.
Maybe god has joined our forum?

Btw. you are aware of the fact that many would see you belonging in "the stupidity of man" category as well? What makes them wrong and you right?
Or do you put yourself in the same category as them? I can't imagine the ego allowing that though.. especially since you know "the truth"

I know the truth, not all of the truth, but a truth nonetheless. It is not logical that I would have all the answers. Why would you assume that I am displaying my knowledge as such?

If I were Steven Hawking, would I be less... "intimidating"?

 

[Decaf]

The beauty of knowledge, what makes even the most simple fundamental so interesting is that we know nothing. Nothing can be proven. Not even our own existence. Not existence itself. Proof as we accept it requires that we make some basic assumptions. I exist. My senses describe reality to my mind.

Most people choose to add some assumptions to their foundation, as is their right. There is a god. Morality exists. I have freedom of choice.

Whether or not those turn out to be true is immaterial as they are unprovable. The only thing that I require of others is that they acknowledge them as assumptions and not truth.

"A model is a simplification, an abstraction, a selection, because our models are inevitably incomplete, incorrect – wrong...Recognising the limitations of our knowledge…is deeply threatening....It’s one thing to point out that someone else’s opinions are ‘just a model; - it’s quite something else to recognize the limitations of our own beliefs."
- John D Sterman​

 

[Enola.Grey]

The beauty of knowledge, what makes even the most simple fundamental so interesting is that we know nothing. Nothing can be proven. Not even our own existence. Not existence itself. Proof as we accept it requires that we make some basic assumptions. I exist. My senses describe reality to my mind.

Most people choose to add some assumptions to their foundation, as is their right. There is a god. Morality exists. I have freedom of choice.

Whether or not those turn out to be true is immaterial as they are unprovable. The only thing that I require of others is that they accept them as assumptions and not truth.

"A model is a simplification, an abstraction, a selection, because our models are inevitably incomplete, incorrect – wrong...Recognising the limitations of our knowledge…is deeply threatening....It’s one thing to point out that someone else’s opinions are ‘just a model; - it’s quite something else to recognize the limitations of our own beliefs."
- John D Sterman​

Congratulations... you have successfully described what faith is.

 

[jachian]

Okay..... I really havent read any of the other responses to this but I think its all pointless........

As far as am concerned, whenever you try to explain the beginning of the universe, nothing makes sense.....

As far as I am concerned matter should not exists, energy should not exist, not space, not time, God should not exist, I really should not be typing this.....

there is no reason why big bang should have happened....

the universe should not exist...... I dont care how much theology or theoretical physics you know when you go back and try to explain the origins universe..... nothing makes sense........


But apparently the universe does exists and I am writing a post......
well.... at least i think the universe exits...... i have no ideal what the hell is going on.........

That being said.... then I guess anything is possible....... even the existence of God...........

And I think the really interesting questions cannot be answered by theology or science....... at least not yet anyway.......

So blah....blah..... blah......... now of us knows jack !!... and were trying to apply logic and we havent a clue what the premises are.

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

The only thing that I require of others is that they acknowledge them as assumptions and not truth.

exactly.
whenever anyone says " i know " my respect for them falls.
it is much more honest to say "i think" or "i feel"

 

[Decaf]

Congratulations... you have successfully described what faith is.

The question remains how to deal with the knowledge that your world view is founded on assumptions. The perspective of the scientific community, of which I am a member, asserts that it cuts the number of its assumptions to the smallest number possible. In order to accomplish that it needs to be able to change its belief in the presence of conflicting information. We can see that effect in the transition from Newtonian physics to relativistic and quantum physics or from alchemy to molecular chemistry.

So based on that observation I think its understandable how someone of the scientific world view would be uncomfortable with anyone claiming truth. Especially those who make no effort in reducing the number of assumptions that make up their perspective.

The problem with a large number of assumptions is that all assumptions inevitably lead to confirmation bias. Some of the biggest culprits of confirmation bias include alternative medicine and believers in the power of prayer. If the desired outcome happens, it goes to prove the theory. If it does not, other forces in play effected the outcome (i.e. evil pharmaceutical companies, the will of God).

Confirmation bias is one of the greatest weaknesses of the human mind, so it seems clear to me why the perspective of reducing assumptions is a superior one to have. If some of the basic assumptions can not be agreed upon, then its clear that complete consensus in any other area will be impossible.

Imagine if you went on Facebook, looked at a friend's profile and instead of seeing favorite books and movies you saw a detailed list of their fundamental assumptions. Things like: I am a good judge of character, people who dislike me are at fault, my perspective of the world is unaffected by my upbringing. Wouldn't that be a great way to actually get to know people?

Here's a question for everyone... what would you put on that list?

 

[Enola.Grey]

The question remains how to deal with the knowledge that your world view is founded on assumptions. The perspective of the scientific community, of which I am a member, asserts that it cuts the number of its assumptions to the smallest number possible. In order to accomplish that it needs to be able to change its belief in the presence of conflicting information. We can see that effect in the transition from Newtonian physics to relativistic and quantum physics or from alchemy to molecular chemistry.

So based on that observation I think its understandable how someone of the scientific world view would be uncomfortable with anyone claiming truth. Especially those who make no effort in reducing the number of assumptions that make up their perspective.

The problem with a large number of assumptions is that all assumptions inevitably lead to confirmation bias. Some of the biggest culprits of confirmation bias include alternative medicine and believers in the power of prayer. If the desired outcome happens, it goes to prove the theory. If it does not, other forces in play effected the outcome (i.e. evil pharmaceutical companies, the will of God).

Confirmation bias is one of the greatest weaknesses of the human mind, so it seems clear to me why the perspective of reducing assumptions is a superior one to have. If some of the basic assumptions can not be agreed upon, then its clear that complete consensus in any other area will be impossible.

Imagine if you went on Facebook, looked at a friend's profile and instead of seeing favorite books and movies you saw a detailed list of their fundamental assumptions. Things like: I am a good judge of character, people who dislike me are at fault, my perspective of the world is unaffected by my upbringing. Wouldn't that be a great way to actually get to know people?

Here's a question for everyone... what would you put on that list?

Confirmation Bias is necessary even in physics. What proof do you have that gravity exist. How do you know the instrument of measure exist?

Confirmation Bias has many schools, in religion and science. You choose the school...

When I say I know the truth, it is logical for you to assume that a degree of faith is needed, whether it is in science or religion...

You had the basic truth in your previous statement about no one knowing the truth. Use that as your basis of faith into your school of science and/or religion.

 

[Adymus]

It is because we can never know what invented the original form of matter, that I logically assume that a God exist.

And that, my friend, is called philosophical suicide.

 

[Enola.Grey]

And that, my friend, is called philosophical suicide.

There is a trend in this thread that must continue for knowledge. The trend is explanation. Empty comments with no understanding are like bread loaves that have been hollowed out.

 

[Decaf]

I agree with Adymus. When no answer is evident, choosing a conclusion at random is not a rational answer. Its giving up.

I assume that at some point we will know more about where matter originated. That's an assumption, but it isn't one that ends the discussion. When evidence is lacking, delay making a decision whenever possible.

 

[kantor1003]

Re: Logic from a Christian purspective...

I know the truth, not all of the truth, but a truth nonetheless. It is not logical that I would have all the answers. Why would you assume that I am displaying my knowledge as such?

If I were Steven Hawking, would I be less... "intimidating"?

Yes, you know a truth. I just like to emphasize that your truth isn't any more of a truth than a man thinking that we all live inside an aliens mind. It is your truth, and the reason of my post is because the way you phrased it, you made it seem like your truth (or a part of the truth, as you mentioned in this post) is absolute..

Edit: Decaf has already elaborated and said what needs to be said. Much better than I could as well.

 

[Decaf]

Confirmation Bias is necessary even in physics. What proof do you have that gravity exist. How do you know the instrument of measure exist?

We make the assumption that our senses give us accurate information about our environment. From that assumption, gravity follows (via observations of acceleration, astronomical orbits and our sense of touch). If you disagree with that assumption, then you may also disagree with the presence of gravity at your leisure.

Confirmation bias first suggests that something is true before it attempts to prove it. Gravity can be arrived at without assuming it first exists. God can not.

basic truth

Basic truth is a contradiction when expressed as something possessed. Truth as applied in a useful manner refers to things which are "true to the best of our knowledge". Calling it basic suggests that it is fundamental, or that nothing else is required to make it so. That is the exact opposite of what I suggested previously.

Edit: Decaf has already elaborated and said what needs to be said. Much better than I could as well.

I've been listening to audio books of the Dune series. I always feel more eloquent after delving into those stories. Frank Herbert is one of my greatest inspirations.

 

[kantor1003]

I've been listening to audio books of the Dune series. I always feel more eloquent after delving into those stories. Frank Herbert is one of my greatest inspirations.

So you are like a less "eloquent" version of frank herbert? thanks! you gave me something to check out

 

[Decaf]

Confirmation bias first suggests that something is true before it attempts to prove it. Gravity can be arrived at without assuming it first exists. God can not.

To make my perspective clear, I don't think this invalidates the belief. Only that it should make believers humble as they continue to believe what they will.

 

[Enola.Grey]

And that, my friend, is called philosophical suicide.

I agree with Adymus. When no answer is evident, choosing a conclusion at random is not a rational answer. Its giving up.

I assume that at some point we will know more about where matter originated. That's an assumption, but it isn't one that ends the discussion. When evidence is lacking, delay making a decision whenever possible.

This is what I meant by that statement. It's is an infinite loop trying to find out why something came to be.

The beauty of knowledge, what makes even the most simple fundamental so interesting is that we know nothing. Nothing can be proven. Not even our own existence. Not existence itself. Proof as we accept it requires that we make some basic assumptions. I exist. My senses describe reality to my mind.

Most people choose to add some assumptions to their foundation, as is their right. There is a god. Morality exists. I have freedom of choice.

Whether or not those turn out to be true is immaterial as they are unprovable. The only thing that I require of others is that they acknowledge them as assumptions and not truth.

"A model is a simplification, an abstraction, a selection, because our models are inevitably incomplete, incorrect – wrong...Recognising the limitations of our knowledge…is deeply threatening....It’s one thing to point out that someone else’s opinions are ‘just a model; - it’s quite something else to recognize the limitations of our own beliefs."
- John D Sterman​

 

[fullerene]

to be fair, y'might want to define gravity, as well. Similarly to questions about God, questions like "does gravity exist?" and "can we discover it without assuming it's existence?" are nonsense. One instead ought to ask "what properties does gravity have?" And once that's settled, you can begin the discussion over whether it exists, or whether it's existence can be derived without assuming it exists first.

If gravity is "some force" (not discussing what kind) between physical matter, and a force is "anything that causes acceleration", then gravity can be observed and documented from the assumption that our senses give us accurate information about the environment. If gravity is the transmission of gravitons between every pair of other particles that are affected by gravity, then you're taking a leap of faith (the graviton hasn't been observed yet, and you're then also assuming that reality is like an analytic function--the Standard Model yielded success in the strong/electroweak forces, so we expect that it won't suddenly break down on gravity because it's held up well for us in those other areas. Of course, nature seems to act discontinuously fairly often--which is the reason why Newtonian mechanics work so well most of the time, but then gives wildly incorrect predictions at very small or very large scales... so in that sense your expectation for gravity to exist is actually incompatible with your assumption that your senses accurately represent reality).

bleh... point being: comparing assumptions and epistemological validity goes nowhere if you don't define your terms and agree on the definitions first. Also, things are much easier to show false if the claimer is specific about their definitions, and much harder if the definitions are left vague.

 

[Enola.Grey]

We make the assumption that our senses give us accurate information about our environment. From that assumption, gravity follows (via observations of acceleration, astronomical orbits and our sense of touch). If you disagree with that assumption, then you may also disagree with the presence of gravity at your leisure.

Same goes for religion. Science and religion are one, in that no truth can be truely verified. You stated the real truth before.

Confirmation bias first suggests that something is true before it attempts to prove it. Gravity can be arrived at without assuming it first exists. God can not.

How do you know it is not all in your head? How do you know you exists? Schools of thought, that is all this is... You have chosen science and I have chosen metaphysics. Neither of us is more true then the other when we can not know whether or not we exist?

Basic truth is a contradiction when expressed as something possessed. Truth as applied in a useful manner refers to things which are "true to the best of our knowledge". Calling it basic suggests that it is fundamental, or that nothing else is required to make it so. That is the exact opposite of what I suggested previously.

You sound like that episode of Seinfeld. When ever he says something is Gay, he says "not that anything is wrong with that." Is it logical to repeat establsiehd principles, or are we still in fifth grade.

I've been listening to audio books of the Dune series. I always feel more eloquent after delving into those stories. Frank Herbert is one of my greatest inspirations.

Dune is AWESOME. Especially Children of Dune. I love the music too.

 

[Thread Killer]

On Jesus and counteracting guilt. Let me put it in this way (the reason I even went back to my former faith). If you have ever been convinced that there exists evil and that there exists good and if you have tried your damndest to live a virtuous life only to fudge up again and again...it kills your motivation to live that life out of a sense of pain and defeat. The idea that his blood absolves my sin gives me the motivation I need to try again while being able to forgive myself and not hold myself under such arrogant views that my own virtue is that virtuous and that I am going to screw up and I can be forgiven, forgive myself, and keep trying without being disheartened.

Okay, that explanation kind of sucked, but you get the idea. However, I have stopped caring and have stopped trying and I can't even explain why I have had a change of heart in the past days to try again.

Getting off that, I also agree that it really is impossible to know for certain anything is as we think it. Are we just conditioned to view the world as we think it is? We could be AI in a computer system programmed to think we are living reality. I highly doubt that, but I believe that the things I believe I know take some faith, one way or another (might have to re-read that sentence a few times to get it). That same faith structures what I call reality. I have faith that the way I perceive is the way it is and that any other possibility, any alternative is as unlikely as I perceive it and therefore not worth entertaining.

So in the end, we all, most of us all, go by our gut. Beliefs change, perception is altered through new ideas and new information and revelations, but I don't think anyone, when they are being honest with themselves, choose to believe the way they do.

 

[Decaf]

How do you know it is not all in your head? How do you know you exists? Schools of thought, that is all this is... You have chosen science and I have chosen metaphysics. Neither of us is more true then the other when we can not know whether or not we exist?

I acknowledge my lack of truth knowledge. I assume I exist because it is not useful to deny it. Even if I am actually a thought in another being's mind, it does not improve the experience to assume I do not exist. The same goes for the accuracy of my senses, though provisions must be made on that assumption when conflicting information is discovered.

In my experience alternative base assumptions have always required a myriad of secondary assumptions to allow for the human experience that it is trying to define. I deny them based on the useful approach of Occam's Razor. If evidence I deem credible based on my assumptions is presented to me that suggests there was something seriously flawed in my position I would change.

That is the fundamental difference between science and religion. Science believes what it observes, while religion denies observation so that faith can be preserved.

are we still in fifth grade.

That depends... do you insist on continuing to use the word "truth" in a way that has not been agreed upon by both parties when framing your argument?

 

[Starfruit M.E.]

"This is almost a syllogism, the most basic and widely accepted standard of logic, saying that salvation cannot come through things that are seen. Since science deals with the realm of things that are seen, and logic uses syllogisms, then using logic to think about Christianity means that scientific fact(? what do you even mean by that, anyway?) isn't a part of it."

Pure logic cannot assume anything. It can only list possibilities. So, if man is, and if man perceives, he can supposedly begin to list possibilities as to what also is. If a man perceives earth, he is not questioned. If a man perceives that he has feeling, he is not questioned. Yet if a man perceives God, perception is suddenly discredited.
If perception is discredited on the basis that many do not perceive the same thing, then specific feelings of the individual may also discredited, along with individual memory of events. If the individual is discredited, and you then discredit all like-thinking individuals, you discredit the entire concept of perception being reliable on an individual or group basis. An entire group can be wrong. If the perception of every member of an entire group can be discredited, perception on the whole is discredited. If perception is discredited, how are you to perceive that you are? Summarized, pure logic cannot assume, credit, or discredit. It can only list endless possibilities.

So, if someone says that they believe something because of what they have perceived, they should not be discredited on the account of "logic". Logic dictates nothing. On the other hand, if someone perceives God, he has no reason to believe otherwise, especially when backed by others. If instead of perception, this was simply an opinion, or concept, still nothing can be undermined by logic. Only the rules that man has perceived over time can try to discredit. These rules, according to logic, could change at any time, and are really just predictions based on previous fallible perceptions.
Continuing to ramble on, the most likely thing according to logic is that things will be unpredictable. So rules based on perception are never truly reliable. If the most likely thing predicts that the "rules" we perceive are unpredictable, then WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU WANT TO USE THESE RULES TO DISCREDIT ANYTHING? Specifically perception on a group basis that they have perceived something outside of those rules?

So if God is perceived, I have no reason to distrust the idea. Especially when perceived by a large group. If he is a concept, he is just as possible as anything else. The only things that could say anything else are not reliable. So if you firmly believe that something is not, then you are even more illogical than the person who says something is, or that it may be.

 

[Enola.Grey]

I acknowledge my lack of truth knowledge. I assume I exist because it is not useful to deny it. Even if I am actually a thought in another being's mind, it does not improve the experience to assume I do not exist. The same goes for the accuracy of my senses, though provisions must be made on that assumption when conflicting information is discovered.

In my experience alternative base assumptions have always required a myriad of secondary assumptions to allow for the human experience that it is trying to define. I deny them based on the useful approach of Occam's Razor. If evidence I deem credible based on my assumptions is presented to me that suggests there was something seriously flawed in my position I would change.

That is the fundamental difference between science and religion. Science believes what it observes, while religion denies observation so that faith can be preserved.

Religion is school of scholastic thinking. Look it up in Wikipedia.

That depends... do you insist on continuing to use the word "truth" in a way that has not been agreed upon by both parties when framing your argument?

Do you know what I hate about Christianity. The repeated chants of "God is Holy." Why? Because it is common sense. For me to repeat myself in each statement is to repeat the established foundations, is to beat a dead horse.

 

[Decaf]

Do you know what I hate about Christianity. The repeated chants of "God is Holy." Why? Because it is common sense. For me to repeat myself in each statement is to repeat the established foundations, is to beat a dead horse.

Common sense is a flawed concept. It assumes similar operational parameters.

Redundancy assumes that the second use of a word, phrase or idea would not add to the clarity of the discussion. By removing qualifiers from your side of the discussion you obscure clarity to the detriment of finding common ground.

 

[fullerene]

[whole post directed towards me]

uh.... er... I'm not sure how to say this, but that was sort of a waste of your time. I don't disagree with what you said, but what I said, that you responded to, was directed towards enloa, and enola alone. When I said "it's" pure logic, I really only meant the forum of the argument. But as someone who has already (maybe implicitly: she could correct me if I'm wrong) said she takes the bible as a valid starting point on which logic can work. If she didn't do that, then you're absolutely right, I couldn't discredit anything on the basis of logic alone. I wouldn't have said the same thing to anyone who didn't already take the bible verses that I used as valid starting points, because then, while I could still logically put it in "if, then" form, it would be nonsensical because they don't agree on the "if" with me.

 

[Enola.Grey]

Common sense is a flawed concept. It assumes similar operational parameters.

Redundancy assumes that the second use of a word, phrase or idea would not add to the clarity of the discussion. By removing qualifiers from your side of the discussion you obscure clarity to the detriment of finding common ground.

But in this conversation, my principles have been established and thus for me to repeat myself is similar to the negative aspects of being an INTP... repeating logic to those who live in stupidity. I am not saying that you are living in stupidity however, but this is an example of my frustration.

This thread is boring. I am moving on...

 

[Decaf]

As a side note, I didn't respond to Cryptonia because he was absolutely right, and I should have taken greater care in the point I was trying to make. Didn't really give me a lot of say in return

 

[fullerene]

lol, thanks. Don't worry about it .

 

[Da Blob]

Hmmm
An interesting experience, just watching such a thread grow, without feeling the need to jump in and contribute my two cents.

I kind of wanted to see how Enola would fare.

Anyway, I believe that some people are born with gifts and abilities to perceive what others can not. They are considered to be "Nuts' or weird by those who do not understand the burden of such gifts. To deny the reality of the gift is to deny is to deny one's own self. Almost like trying to dodge one's destiny, denying that one sees what one sees. I have been a lucid dreamer since I was a toddler. This is not objectively possible, but it is my reality. So I do not automatically discount others accounts of singular abilities, perhaps we'll meet in a dream at some point(?)

However, I do not see Christianity as a logical or even rational phenomena. There is nothing Rational about the Creator of the Universe assuming a body of matter, which He allows to be destroyed, for the sole purpose of salvaging souls/specimens from this doomed species timeline. It was not the logic of the scientific method He employed in establishing the Truth, but a greater Method, in which Time is not a constant, but just another one of the manipulative variables He uses in His Methodology.

The problem with Man's logic is that we really haven't got the slightest clue as to what Time actually is. We just assume Time as an unverified constant to make all of our little mental models and sequences of logic, subject to our will....

The Others Faith in Time, instead of Faith in the Creator of Time, may prove to be the source of their ultimate demise.

 

[Enola.Grey]

Hmmm
An interesting experience, just watching such a thread grow, without feeling the need to jump in and contribute my two cents.

I kind of wanted to see how Enola would fare.

Anyway, I believe that some people are born with gifts and abilities to perceive what others can not. They are considered to be "Nuts' or weird by those who do not understand the burden of such gifts. To deny the reality of the gift is to deny is to deny one's own self. Almost like trying to dodge one's destiny, denying that one sees what one sees. I have been a lucid dreamer since I was a toddler. This is not objectively possible, but it is my reality. So I do not automatically discount others accounts of singular abilities, perhaps we'll meet in a dream at some point(?)

However, I do not see Christianity as a logical or even rational phenomena. There is nothing Rational about the Creator of the Universe assuming a body of matter, which He allows to be destroyed, for the sole purpose of salvaging souls/specimens from this doomed species timeline. It was not the logic of the scientific method He employed in establishing the Truth, but a greater Method, in which Time is not a constant, but just another one of the manipulative variables He uses in His Methodology.

The problem with Man's logic is that we really haven't got the slightest clue as to what Time actually is. We just assume Time as an unverified constant to make all of our little mental models and sequences of logic, subject to our will....

The Others Faith in Time, instead of Faith in the Creator of Time, may prove to be the source of their ultimate demise.

In the Christian religion, humans believe the world to be created in six days. However, it was only till the fourth "day" that the sun and moon wear created. Knowing this, we can logically assume that God's interpretation of days is different that what we interpret as days.

Kind of makes evolution more plausible...

I said this thread was boring, and yet I return. I guess I will hang around until the topic enters a loop again.

 

[Da Blob]

Evolution was a consequence of the "Curse of the Earth". The change introduced by Adam upset the delicate perfect equilibrium of Paradise - which was analogous to the tightly controlled environment of a laboratory. Since God is Life, He had to adapt the life forms of this planet to survive in what suddenly had become a 'hostile' environment.

A interesting study of the Bible would be one focused on the variable of Time as it is portrayed in the Bible...
A few examples...

2nd Peter 3: 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2nd Cor 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

It is also worthy of note, that the concept of linear Time was introduced to mankind in the book of Genesis - otherwise the pagan notion of Time consisting in repeating celestial cycles with no Beginning or end (Solar cycle = Day, Lunar cycle = month, Stellar cycle = year) might still be the standard (See Ouroboros).

Speaking of which, it is interesting that the Preacher addresses the calamities of Time - but uses the pagan concept of Time to do so (?) There is a mystery there - or so it seems.

 

[Enola.Grey]

Yes, in the astral, this is so. The world slows down almost to a halt. However, what is more amazing is that you can go back and forward in time.

The second verse is true. This world will be destroyed eventually, and it is best to live life to the fullest while you are here on this earth. Do not fear anything. Death is inevitable, so why become a slave to the fear of dying. Live life to the fullest, even if it means your own death.

However, do not let those around you suffer but let them enjoy life as well. The judgement process is very real when you are going through it.

Of course, this is my supported assumption.

 

[Starfruit M.E.]

However, I do not see Christianity as a logical or even rational phenomena. There is nothing Rational about the Creator of the Universe assuming a body of matter, which He allows to be destroyed, for the sole purpose of salvaging souls/specimens from this doomed species timeline. It was not the logic of the scientific method He employed in establishing the Truth, but a greater Method, in which Time is not a constant, but just another one of the manipulative variables He uses in His Methodology.

I was speaking in response to the overuse of the word "logic" to defend and oppose ideas. According to logic, anything could occur. Therefore it would be better stated "I don't understand why..." instead of "it is illogical". Just because logic says something is possible does not mean it will make sense to everybody.

That aside, I agree with the above statement that it doesn't particularly make sense to me either. But if you were an artist who created a painting, but then the painting fell of the stand and got messed up, wouldn't you want to fix it, even if it mean sacrificing your time, sleep, and comfort?

 

[RubberDucky451]

That aside, I agree with the above statement that it doesn't particularly make sense to me either. But if you were an artist who created a painting, but then the painting fell of the stand and got messed up, wouldn't you want to fix it, even if it mean sacrificing your time, sleep, and comfort?

Who can understand God? Certainty not fallen beings such as ourselves. The little understanding we have of him is gleaned from Jesus and the Bible.