Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1087306 Posts in 72013 Topics- by 19243 Members - Latest Member: CABurton159
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 ... 61   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: God  (Read 31308 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ronkny

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 11368

View Profile
« Reply #1060 on: Aug 24, 2017, 11:51AM »

You don't like atheist sources, you don't like theist sources.

There's jut no pleasing you Dave.
The Cathokiv church has been around longer than any other. You don't site them as resources.  That's like me not citing the PDR as a drug reference or Medline for research articles.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
John the Theologian
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 16, 2013
Posts: 825

View Profile
« Reply #1061 on: Aug 24, 2017, 12:43PM »

"It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist to save us."

Attr.  Revend Andrew Mackerel.   Circa 1958. 

What's the context of this quote?  It can be read in more than one way depending on the context.  I could agree with one possible way of reading it, but I don't know what Rev. Mackerel's context was.
Logged
drizabone
*
Offline Offline

Location: Central Coast, Australia
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 1997

View Profile
« Reply #1062 on: Aug 24, 2017, 02:28PM »

You don't like atheist sources, you don't like theist sources.

There's jut no pleasing you Dave.

He doesn't sound like a theist?

Or can you be a theist and not believe in the existence of God? 

That would make you one. You've been outed!
Logged
ronkny

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 11368

View Profile
« Reply #1063 on: Aug 24, 2017, 02:53PM »

He doesn't sound like a theist?

Or can you be a theist and not believe in the existence of God? 

That would make you one. You've been outed!
Good!
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
nemomcnab

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Mar 21, 2013
Posts: 69

View Profile
« Reply #1064 on: Aug 24, 2017, 02:59PM »

Then your fundamental starting point-- i.e. your presupposition-- is that you can't know if there is a God.  That's a statement of faith because you cannot prove that using your own scientific method.  All starting points are statements of faith.  The orthodox Christian simply claims that we believe that it is a poor starting point as well as one which can't be proven by your own principles of scientific method.

To be clear, my starting point or "presupposition" here is that I can't know NOW if there is a God (no evidence). Presumably, also, God could show up and provide some evidence of Her existence. Then I would have to reevaluate my take on it. I've met several people in my life who claimed to be God/Jesus. To me they seemed like natural humans. Who knows, maybe Jesus of Nazareth was just a regular dude off his meds. I do not accept  your  assertion that "all starting points" are statements of faith. To me, faith is belief in something for which there is no objective evidence. (I realize that for the religious, faith can be very complex and probably has dozens of definitions available - I'm just using a basic english language definition).

I have "faith" in my ignorance and limitations. But there is significant objective evidence to support this "belief" so it's really not equivalent to religious faith. Also, the scientific method does not attempt to "prove" anything. It simply tries to test hypotheses/theories as a means of furthering our understanding of the "world" around and within us, ad infinitum.. There is no end point. No "proof." All theories are subject to review, revision and rejection as new or more evidence is discovered, for ever and ever.

My engagement with you in this discussion is not an attempt to argue against your faith. Your faith is your choice and your modus operandi. My modus operandi is my choice and in that sense they are equivalent. Beyond that I do not agree that your faith and my lack of it are both "faith" with one inferior to the other. I am not interested in that kind of judgement. I am complaining only about being defined by someone else on this basic level. If someone says they are homosexual I believe them. If someone says they are heterosexual I believe them. If someone says they are an orthodox Christian I believe them. I simply don't like being defined by others in ways contrary to my self definition.
Logged
John the Theologian
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 16, 2013
Posts: 825

View Profile
« Reply #1065 on: Aug 24, 2017, 03:14PM »

To be clear, my starting point or "presupposition" here is that I can't know NOW if there is a God (no evidence). Presumably, also, God could show up and provide some evidence of Her existence. Then I would have to reevaluate my take on it. I've met several people in my life who claimed to be God/Jesus. To me they seemed like natural humans. Who knows, maybe Jesus of Nazareth was just a regular dude off his meds. I do not accept  your  assertion that "all starting points" are statements of faith. To me, faith is belief in something for which there is no objective evidence. (I realize that for the religious, faith can be very complex and probably has dozens of definitions available - I'm just using a basic english language definition).

I have "faith" in my ignorance and limitations. But there is significant objective evidence to support this "belief" so it's really not equivalent to religious faith. Also, the scientific method does not attempt to "prove" anything. It simply tries to test hypotheses/theories as a means of furthering our understanding of the "world" around and within us, ad infinitum.. There is no end point. No "proof." All theories are subject to review, revision and rejection as new or more evidence is discovered, for ever and ever.

My engagement with you in this discussion is not an attempt to argue against your faith. Your faith is your choice and your modus operandi. My modus operandi is my choice and in that sense they are equivalent. Beyond that I do not agree that your faith and my lack of it are both "faith" with one inferior to the other. I am not interested in that kind of judgement. I am complaining only about being defined by someone else on this basic level. If someone says they are homosexual I believe them. If someone says they are heterosexual I believe them. If someone says they are an orthodox Christian I believe them. I simply don't like being defined by others in ways contrary to my self definition.

The Oxford American Dictionary-- a basic standard dictionary--- gives 4 definitions for faith:
1. reliance or trust in a person or thing
2. belief in religious doctrine
3. a system of religious belief
4. loyalty, sincerity

None of these definitions say that faith is something for which there is no objective evidence.  Essentially that is your private definition of faith, not a standard dictionary one.  In other words you have faith in your definition of faith which is not a standard one.  Evil

You said that you can't know if there is a God.  That is because you have a starting point that rules out several forms of evidence, especially the transcendental one--notice that I haven't even mentioned personal experience of those who claim that they know there is a God, but that's another issue.  Many serious philosophers-- not just religious one, by the, would agree that saying that a starting point is proved if it best explains reality is a clear form of evidence-- transcendental evidence.  You have defined evidence in a way to exclude that because you have faith in your presupposition that such types of evidence is not valid.  A fair number of philosophers, not just religious ones, as I said, would disagree with you.

My point here is not to attempt to convince you of my theism, but to have you "come clean" on the fact that your starting point is not as "neutral" as you think.  You have a starting point, a presupposition, that has decided what types of evidence you will accept, your own, essentially private, definition of faith, etc, all of which are not neutral, but are chosen so that your conclusion will be valid to you.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1066 on: Aug 24, 2017, 03:43PM »

Of course not, but all starting points are judged transcendentally, i.e. by how rational their explanatory power is.

Consistency seems like kind of a thing though ... eh?
 
I'm not sure you can defend using one standard here and another there, just by what your presumptions tell you.
 
And again, if those presumptions aren't amendable according to evidence, that's pretty questionable ... at least for human brain owners. Others, maybe not.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1067 on: Aug 24, 2017, 03:47PM »

None of these definitions say that faith is something for which there is no objective evidence.

Perhaps not, but objective evidence does.
 
And you could also maybe see another dictionary or check into the anthropology, sociology and psychology of religion, but don't do so lightly.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
nemomcnab

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Mar 21, 2013
Posts: 69

View Profile
« Reply #1068 on: Aug 24, 2017, 04:09PM »

The Oxford American Dictionary-- a basic standard dictionary--- gives 4 definitions for faith:
1. reliance or trust in a person or thing
2. belief in religious doctrine
3. a system of religious belief
4. loyalty, sincerity

None of these definitions say that faith is something for which there is no objective evidence.  Essentially that is your private definition of faith, not a standard dictionary one.  In other words you have faith in your definition of faith which is not a standard one.  Evil

You said that you can't know if there is a God.  That is because you have a starting point that rules out several forms of evidence, especially the transcendental one--notice that I haven't even mentioned personal experience of those who claim that they know there is a God, but that's another issue.  Many serious philosophers-- not just religious one, by the, would agree that saying that a starting point is proved if it best explains reality is a clear form of evidence-- transcendental evidence.  You have defined evidence in a way to exclude that because you have faith in your presupposition that such types of evidence is not valid.  A fair number of philosophers, not just religious ones, as I said, would disagree with you.

My point here is not to attempt to convince you of my theism, but to have you "come clean" on the fact that your starting point is not as "neutral" as you think.  You have a starting point, a presupposition, that has decided what types of evidence you will accept, your own, essentially private, definition of faith, etc, all of which are not neutral, but are chosen so that your conclusion will be valid to you.

Merriam-Webster:

Faith - b1  "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." (Cherry picking' much?)

Never said my starting point was "neutral." I am as capable of bias as anyone else. I made a choice about which "evidence" I would use, ya know, the sciency kind to influence my decisions, etc. You seem to be saying that my choice is inferior to your choice which includes, I gather, those "serious philosophers" and "transcendent intuition," etc. I am not arguing that you shouldn't choose your own philosophy or that you should only choose mine. I am not arguing that I am right. I am only arguing that I am under no obligation to "come clean" about something I never asserted. Oh, and that I don't like being defined (judged) by others regarding my irreligiosity.

If you were to site "personal experience" as evidence of God I would not say you were wrong. If you told me God came down out of a cloud in human form and convinced you that every word of the bible is literally True, I would not call you a liar. But unless you could reproduce that experience for me and others It would not make my cut for "evidence" so I would not likely alter my views as a result. I find it rather a cheap shot -  apparently belittling my definition of faith as my "own, essentially private, definition." Despite Merriam-Webster, so what if it was "just" my own? I am comfortable defining such things for myself as I find useful - thankyouverymuch.
Logged
John the Theologian
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 16, 2013
Posts: 825

View Profile
« Reply #1069 on: Aug 24, 2017, 05:08PM »

Merriam-Webster:

Faith - b1  "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." (Cherry picking' much?)

Never said my starting point was "neutral." I am as capable of bias as anyone else. I made a choice about which "evidence" I would use, ya know, the sciency kind to influence my decisions, etc. You seem to be saying that my choice is inferior to your choice which includes, I gather, those "serious philosophers" and "transcendent intuition," etc. I am not arguing that you shouldn't choose your own philosophy or that you should only choose mine. I am not arguing that I am right. I am only arguing that I am under no obligation to "come clean" about something I never asserted. Oh, and that I don't like being defined (judged) by others regarding my irreligiosity.

If you were to site "personal experience" as evidence of God I would not say you were wrong. If you told me God came down out of a cloud in human form and convinced you that every word of the bible is literally True, I would not call you a liar. But unless you could reproduce that experience for me and others It would not make my cut for "evidence" so I would not likely alter my views as a result. I find it rather a cheap shot -  apparently belittling my definition of faith as my "own, essentially private, definition." Despite Merriam-Webster, so what if it was "just" my own? I am comfortable defining such things for myself as I find useful - thankyouverymuch.

Nope, not cherry picking, just pulling the dictionary that is on my shelf.  I'll grant you that the term can be defined that way on occasions, but it's not the primary meaning, I would maintain.  My point had nothing to do with the "inferiority" or "superiority" of my POV.  Obviously, we both believe ours is superior or we wouldn't accept it.

My point is that, as you admitted, your POV is not neutral, because there is no real neutral starting point.  Every starting point is an act of faith, i.e. trust that the chosen starting point best explains the whole world view.  What kind of evidence is valid and good is certainly a point to debate, but my point was also that there are various kinds of evidence that need to be brought into an validation of one's starting point and that the coherence of the whole world view--we're just starting this over on another thread-- is a major one, one which most philosophers would argue is crucial.

Some of your responses seem to have missed what I was aiming at, I think.
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12310

View Profile
« Reply #1070 on: Aug 24, 2017, 06:42PM »

The Oxford American Dictionary-- a basic standard dictionary--- gives 4 definitions for faith:
1. reliance or trust in a person or thing
2. belief in religious doctrine
3. a system of religious belief
4. loyalty, sincerity

None of these definitions say that faith is something for which there is no objective evidence. 

Correct.

That part comes from the Bible. And is deeply engrained in Christian doctrine.
Logged

Tim Richardson
John the Theologian
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 16, 2013
Posts: 825

View Profile
« Reply #1071 on: Aug 24, 2017, 07:56PM »

Correct.

That part comes from the Bible. And is deeply engrained in Christian doctrine.

I'm assuming you may be referring to Hebrews 11:1.

Here is a good summary of the use of faith in that particular verse, which some have assumed is a biblical definition of faith, which is probably not completely correct, but rather a description of an important aspect of faith

Anyway, this is a good comment on the meaning of the Greek work pisitis  I have highlighted the part that is relevant to our current discussion:

Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith (pi'stis) is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." This passage concerning the function of faith in relation to the covenant of God is often used as a definition of faith. Υποστασις (hy-po'sta-sis), translated "assurance" here, commonly appears in ancient papyrus business documents, conveying the idea that a covenant is an exchange of assurances which guarantees the future transfer of possessions described in the contract. In view of this, James Hope Moulton and George Milligan suggest the rendering: "Faith is the title deed of things hoped for" (Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 1963, p. 660). The Greek word eŽleg-khos, rendered "conviction" in Hebrews 11:1 (ESV), conveys the idea of bringing forth evidence that demonstrates something, particularly something contrary to what appears to be the case. Thereby this evidence makes clear what has not been discerned before and so refutes what has only appeared to be the case. This evidence for conviction is so positive or powerful that it is described as faith. Christian faith, described in these terms, is not synonymous with credulity, but rather has connotations of acting in faithfulness and trust.
Logged
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 12310

View Profile
« Reply #1072 on: Aug 25, 2017, 04:59AM »

Yeah, Hebrews, but doesn't John 20:29 apply, as well as some other references?  I'm not cherry picking one verse, I'm pointing to a body of Christian doctrine that claims to be scripturally based. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3268

View Profile
« Reply #1073 on: Aug 25, 2017, 08:38PM »

Mathew 24:7 is supposed to be a prophesy by God the Son of the signs of the end of days.  It says:

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. (KJV)

So, I did a little poking around in the historical record and am left a little disappointed.  I couldn't find a decade in our history where all of this did not happen.  In fact, it is a rare year where all of this does not happen.

I'm just wondering if there is anything we can actually take from this?  Perhaps it was a misquote by the person that supposedly wrote what Mathew supposedly said that Jesus supposedly said?  Don't know
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3268

View Profile
« Reply #1074 on: Aug 25, 2017, 08:45PM »

What's the context of this quote?  It can be read in more than one way depending on the context.  I could agree with one possible way of reading it, but I don't know what Rev. Mackerel's context was.
I'll admit I don't either.  It was something I noted in a note book whilst doing a little reading.  I don't posses the test wherein Rev. Mackerel asserted this and will freely admit it's quoted out of context.  The interesting exercise then becomes formulating a viable context in which it makes sense.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3268

View Profile
« Reply #1075 on: Aug 25, 2017, 08:54PM »

He doesn't sound like a theist?

Or can you be a theist and not believe in the existence of God? 

That would make you one. You've been outed!
Hah!  Nice try  Martin, but no banana.

As I admitted above (or below depending on your forum settings) I've lost the context of the statement.  If I had to guess at a context though, it would be, no matter how hard the non-believer tries to discredit and destroy the idea of God, he can't erase the unmistakable mark of God's hand.

But I shouldn't have to give you good theists the answers.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Exzaclee

*
Offline Offline

Location: Edmond, OK
Joined: Mar 8, 2008
Posts: 6569
"Check out my new website!"


View Profile
« Reply #1076 on: Aug 25, 2017, 11:49PM »

God's Jazz Hands.

 Hi Sing it! Hi
Logged

Music is my mistress, and she plays second fiddle to no one!
www.zacleemusic.com
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #1077 on: Aug 26, 2017, 06:10PM »

The Cathokiv church has been around longer than any other. You don't site them as resources.  That's like me not citing the PDR as a drug reference or Medline for research articles.

Or barber-surgeons for medicine.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
ronkny

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 11368

View Profile
« Reply #1078 on: Aug 26, 2017, 08:55PM »

Or barber-surgeons for medicine.
No PM.  Ever read the Catechism? Aquinas? Augustine? Merton?
No? I didn't think so.  Save your snark.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1079 on: Aug 27, 2017, 06:30AM »

No PM.  Ever read the Catechism? Aquinas? Augustine? Merton?
No? I didn't think so.  Save your snark.

Clearly, PM, your point is not welcome, partly because it's been too well made which makes it harder to "address" convincingly enough to be easily dismissed. That means it will cause labor either in terms of coming up with a better excuse to ignore it, or it will take a bigger chunk out of the armor that protects the sacred cows inside.
 
Fortunately, since Ronkny's pointed out the well established and clearly non fallacious fact that older information is more valid, we can look back to which religious tradition has the most authority.
 
 --
 
Just a note:
Religion - X Axis
Age in Years - Y Axis

 
Or maybe we'll just go with a different standard for graphs ...
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Pages: 1 ... 49 50 51 52 53 [54] 55 56 57 58 59 ... 61   Go Up
Print
Jump to: