|
|
#32
09-20-2006, 03:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Common theistic error?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So this is a matter of faith for you? That the bible is the word of god? [/ QUOTE ] Of course. But it isn't blind faith. [/ QUOTE ] This isnt an attack on faith, or on belief in the bible. I think it is important that if you are advancing a reason for one particular belief, it has to mesh with all your other unrelated beliefs as well. If belief in the bible is a matter of faith then it doesnt need rational justification (although it is also harder to persuade someone else to believe it). 
|
|
#33
09-20-2006, 03:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Common theistic error?
[ QUOTE ]
we may be wrong about him wanting us to know him? [/ QUOTE ] Humans can be wrong about anything. It is God who is infallible, not man. But that doesn't make my belief groundless. [ QUOTE ] There are people who defend belief in the bible based on what they think God would want. These are the theists I am referring to. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, I think I see what you're getting at. "If God had wanted man to fly He would have given us wings" type of thing? I try to avoid that kind of speculation. If I do engage in it, I try to make it clear it's non-dogmatic speculation. But I think it's clear from the Bible that God wants us to know Him and that the Bible is His communication to us, so it isn't really groundless speculation. It is circular, though. Which could be the basis for a new thread.
|
|
#34
09-20-2006, 04:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Common theistic error?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] we may be wrong about him wanting us to know him? [/ QUOTE ] Humans can be wrong about anything. It is God who is infallible, not man. But that doesn't make my belief groundless. [/ QUOTE ] Not your belief, no. But if someone believed because of what they thought god wanted and they were wrong about that - then the grounds for their belief have disappeared (irrespective of whether the belief is true or not). I am referring to how people justify their belief, not the belief itself. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] There are people who defend belief in the bible based on what they think God would want. These are the theists I am referring to. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, I think I see what you're getting at. "If God had wanted man to fly He would have given us wings" type of thing? I try to avoid that kind of speculation. If I do engage in it, I try to make it clear it's non-dogmatic speculation. But I think it's clear from the Bible that God wants us to know Him and that the Bible is His communication to us, so it isn't really groundless speculation. It is circular, though. Which could be the basis for a new thread. [/ QUOTE ] I agree - circular is not a problem when it comes to holding a position though, it just means you wont convince someone who doesnt share your faith.
|
|
#35
09-20-2006, 04:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Common theistic error?
[ QUOTE ]
If belief in the bible is a matter of faith then it doesnt need rational justification [/ QUOTE ] All humans believe in something they can't rationally justify. The reason is because we are finite so we are stymied when trying to grasp absolutes with finite human reason. We have to start with some presupposition we can't prove - everyone does. I believe Christian theism is the most consistent and most rational worldview, but we still have to have faith - we have neither complete information nor infallible intellects.
|
|
#36
09-20-2006, 04:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Common theistic error?
[ QUOTE ]
But if someone believed because of what they thought god wanted and they were wrong about that [/ QUOTE ] This is the danger point and one of the reasons I believe God gave us His Word - not only to reveal Himself, but to curb speculation. In the New Testament, I can't remember the passage now, it says "No Scripture is a matter on one's own private interpretation" - and it warns about taking stands based on "visions". [ QUOTE ] it just means you wont convince someone who doesnt share your faith. [/ QUOTE ] I can make arguments, quote Scripture, etc., but all faith comes from God. He does use human instrumentalities, but it is "God who causes the growth".
|
|
#37
09-20-2006, 04:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Argumenta ecclesiastica
[ QUOTE ]
You think you can consistently claim to not be able to know God's mind. [/ QUOTE ]We accept the following as axiomatically true: - God created the Universe and Everything In It. - God created Man in His image. - There will be a Second Coming sometime in the future. - God never lies to us humans. (Otherwise, we'd be trapped in an Epimenides paradox. I post this link to add gravity to my post.) Let A = Other forms of intelligent life exist in the Universe. If A = True, then B = God has many forms, one of which is the human form, or C = only beings with human form exist in the Universe. If B = True, then there is as much value and sanctity in the images of God in human worship as the images of yet unthikable life forms. This renders the sanctity of the Cross much, much less valuable. (E.g. in Alpha Centauri, the Son of God should have presented Himself to the locals in their own form, which, as it happens, is 3-inch long centipedes. Ergo, The Son of God could not have been properly crucified in Alpha Centauri. Perhaps sprayed with Raid.) If C = True, then most everything falls into place. But we're not out of the woods yet. We have to assume either that D = The New Testament story has been replayed already elsewhere in the universe, or E = The New Testament only run on Earth, so far. (Think of Alpha Centauri as Topeka to Earth's New York, in terms of movie openings.) If D = True, then the "killing of the Son of God" by the locals must've taken place at the same time synchronically in every part of the Universe, even if Earthlings are measuring 2006 Earth-years from His birth, and Alpha Centaurians are measuring 11509 Alpha Centauri-years. (Or "11509 zzkbratsatsa". In the plural.) This is due to the Second Coming coming some time in the future (see top) but coming coming at the same moment for all the Universe. I would imagine that the unfolding of events with the same speed at the same time in places of the Universe far apart between them obliges us to re-think the Universe's physics. If E = True, then the other lives in the Universe must in various states of their development, but all of them must find themselves in a state similar to the Earth's state prior to year 33 AD or thereabouts. This means that, as we speak, the Son of God could be getting crucified (but not sprayed) on Alpha Centauri. What will happen if a human expedition from a devout and god-fearing Christian nation lands on Mars as the locals get ready to toast the Son of God? ...Damn! The last bit got me hungry. I wanted to prove that we must be alone in the universe before signing off for breakfast but I gotta skip. Someone else carry on, please. Mickey Bra
|
|
#38
09-20-2006, 04:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Argumenta ecclesiastica
Very...deep?
[ QUOTE ] Let A = Other forms of intelligent life exist in the Universe. If A = True, then B = God has many forms, one of which is the human form, or C = only beings with human form exist in the Universe. [/ QUOTE ] Or God made other intelligent lifeforms, not in his image. [ QUOTE ] ...Damn! The last bit got me hungry. I wanted to prove that we must be alone in the universe before signing off for breakfast but I gotta skip. Someone else carry on, please. [/ QUOTE ] I think this is the best explanation for the Fermi paradox, although I dont think it relies on God's existence or otherwise.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
