what do christians say about chinese people

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
It would help, Lebowski, if you would clarify exactly what you find strange about the fact that Christianity spread more quickly to some parts of the world than to others and/or that it exists today less in some parts of the world than in others. I'd like to see how you are arguing from either of those situations (the past one or the present one) to the conclusion that Christianity must be a man-made religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that it had to "spread" at all makes it suspect.

How do you reconcile the fact that if you were born in another part of the world, you may have been a Muslim, and you would be arguing the truth of the Koran instead of the Bible. You could say that you were lucky to have been born into the correct faith, and those born Muslim were unlucky, but they would say the same thing. How can you be sure you are right and they are wrong?

[Subfallen]

I lied, Daily Show eps finished downloading so couldn't sleep.

I feel like you are missing my point. Of course "God" is a subjectively meaningful concept! (We wouldn't have thousands of religions if the notion of transcendent Being wasn't readily available to anyone with an imagination.) But that does not make God an actually meaningful concept. For example, this:

[ QUOTE ]
The properties with which you take issue, infinitude and supra-temporality, are clearly terms which involve the negation of properties known in observable entities.

[/ QUOTE ]

will simply not do. It is another confusion of logical/subjective meaning with actual meaning. Just because it is logically meaningful to negate an actually meaningful category (finite) does not mean the negation gives another actually meaningful category (infinite.) Logical necessity != actual necessity.

Of course, something must be logically possible to be actually possible. But it is nothing more than a hopeless idealism to assume that all logical constructions beginning with actual categories also end with actual categories.

[ QUOTE ]
You never responded to either my claim that analogy is different from metaphor or my question concerning when you do think analogical predication is meaningful, since you said it is "usually" nonrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Analogies may be meaningful but still nonrational. The point is that one may not confuse categories.

In general, you are misunderstanding my opinion on the metaphysical status of nonrational Truth claims. I have no objection to such claims, I merely object to representing them as rational.

[ QUOTE ]
But, I suppose the rhetorical force of your response to theists isn't as strong or as impressive to less-educated atheists if you use the term 'non-empirical' instead of 'nonrational.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, given the current state of human knowledge, I consider all non-naturalistic claims to be nonrational. Of course I am completely open to changing that position if future observation invalidates methodological naturalism.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, why did you begin your response to me in this thread by asking for a theodicy, if you must think that the term theodicy itself and any sentences using it are nonrational?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because, again, I am not a nihilist and hold no particular opinion on nonrational Truth claims. I was just curious if you would attempt an argument that did not begin by defining morality as a logical attribute of God's nature. (Hint: such an argument does exist. And it's beautiful. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Even worse is God's apparent indifference to the people that came before Jesus. According to the New Testament anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as God/the son of God will go to hell and spend ETERNITY in infinite pain and damnation.
We know that humans (walking, talking, tool using humans) have existed for 100,000 years. Why didn't God want to save them from hell? Apparently, he just watched them all live very short lives of abject misery and suffering for 100k years. Then 2k years ago decided "Thats enough, I think Ill magically impregnate a Palestinian virgin, and torture to death the child she bears. Then they'll know how much I love them."

uh huh.

[/ QUOTE ]

This very question is how, within logic and the understanding of the human being as a moral tone poem, one can some to the conclusion of the reality of reincarnation and karma.

Your post SPEAKS TO A RATIONAL EXPLANATION OF WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY TO BE IRRATIONAL. In coming to these conclusions good will is evident.

[Matt R.]

Subfallen,
Do you think that pure mathematics deals with "actually meaningful" concepts? Why or why not?

Do you think that the statement "Gravitons mediate gravitational interactions" has "actual meaning"? Why or why not?

Gravitons are not observable entities. I don't know what you mean by "definitional categories".

Are you seriously arguing that for something to have "actual meaning" you must observe it first? It appears that is what you are saying based on this:

[ QUOTE ]
How about: "The sky is blue." All terms in this sentence map to actually observable entities or definitional categories.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what is "actual" about actual meaning?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is based in ACTUAL OBSERVATION.


[/ QUOTE ]

[BTirish]

With Matt R., I too would like to see how you give account of mathematical and theoretical physical concepts in your naturalist methodology. I know how Kant does it, and I'm curious if you propose to do it in the same way.

Perhaps you might also give some examples of some propositions for which logical necessity != actual necessity. Like I said, I'm certainly not defending any ontological argument here. Any arguments for the existence of God must proceed from observed properties of the world. Also, I fail to see why any talk of God is merely "subjectively meaningful" when what I refer to by the word is the same as what anyone else refers to, even if we were both only referring to a logically possible concept.

To take the conversation in another direction, perhaps... More importantly, 'God' isn't just a term representing some conglomeration of logically concocted properties. It's a name that refers to an entity that many people believe exists. By 'God' many people may just mean "the being who revealed Himself to Abraham." As I think most analytic philosophers have recognized, it's a lot harder to dismiss 'God' as a name referring to an entity which a person believes to exist.

I should note that I am not an analytic philosopher, if you hadn't guessed, but I am rather familiar with contemporary analytic philosophy.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
With Matt R., I too would like to see how you give account of mathematical and theoretical physical concepts in your naturalist methodology. I know how Kant does it, and I'm curious if you propose to do it in the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mathematical meaning is a great example of logical meaning that is distinct from actual meaning. I don't see what's confusing about this.

As I think I said last night, I am not making any definite assertion about the metaphysical status of subjective meaning. Rather I am repudiating your idealism that gives subjective meaning an a priori privileged metaphysical status.

(Of course, until more is understood about consciousness it will be comically over-eager to imagine the subject decided. But, provisionally, it appears that strict naturalism will run the tables. So it's just dishonest methodology to assert any non-naturalistic idealism at this stage in the game.)

[ QUOTE ]
As I think most analytic philosophers have recognized, it's a lot harder to dismiss 'God' as a name referring to an entity which a person believes to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must still be missing the point, because most ways I read this, it just sounds silly. I AM NOT DENYING THE POSSIBLE ACTUALITY OF NONRATIONAL TRUTH CLAIMS. I am merely saying that you cannot confuse actually meaningless claims with those derived from actual observation.

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With Matt R., I too would like to see how you give account of mathematical and theoretical physical concepts in your naturalist methodology. I know how Kant does it, and I'm curious if you propose to do it in the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mathematical meaning is a great example of logical meaning that is distinct from actual meaning. I don't see what's confusing about this.

As I think I said last night, I am not making any definite assertion about the metaphysical status of subjective meaning. Rather I am repudiating your idealism that gives subjective meaning an a priori privileged metaphysical status.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm not defending any kind of ontological argument here. I'm not suggesting that it is through conceptual analysis alone that any logical concept is demonstrated to exist. So long as you aren't definitively denying, a priori and necessarily, the existence of any entities which are not "actual" in the sense in which you use the term--that is, observable--then I don't think we are actually disagreeing about all that much on this particular point.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I think most analytic philosophers have recognized, it's a lot harder to dismiss 'God' as a name referring to an entity which a person believes to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must still be missing the point, because most ways I read this, it just sounds silly. I AM NOT DENYING THE POSSIBLE ACTUALITY OF NONRATIONAL TRUTH CLAIMS. I am merely saying that you cannot confuse actually meaningless claims with those derived from actual observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think we've been talking slightly past each other for a couple of posts. But I do want to make one clarification for others reading our conversation: by your own admission, you are using the term 'actual' in a manner basically interchangeable with 'observed' or 'resulting from empirical observation.' So all you are really saying, in the end, is that any truth claims concerning God are not "actually meaningful" in that they are not derived (at least directly) from empirical observation. If you mean more than this, then, perhaps ironically, you're the one equivocating with the term 'actual.'

Incidentally, as I've already said, any proof for God's existence must rest upon "observation," but I grant that observation must be understood more broadly than the restrictions of what I assume you mean by methodological naturalism. What I really want to hammer home is that I'm not defending an ontological argument.

Do you find anything objectionable about how I've presented your position here? If not, I'd like to ask you the following question:

Could you offer a defense of methodological naturalism? You seem to have asserted that it is the only reasonable view at the present time--why? Just a brief apologia would be nice.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, as I've already said, any proof for God's existence must rest upon "observation," but I grant that observation must be understood more broadly than the restrictions of what I assume you mean by methodological naturalism. What I really want to hammer home is that I'm not defending an ontological argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Matt R.]

Subfallen,
[ QUOTE ]
Mathematical meaning is a great example of logical meaning that is distinct from actual meaning. I don't see what's confusing about this.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not confusing. Your position just makes absolutely no sense, and we're trying to nudge you in a direction where you realize this for yourself. For starters, as BTirish pointed out, you should quit obfuscating definitions and just use the word "observable" instead of "actual". I know what you are trying to do, and it's not working. You cannot define your words in such a way where naturalism must be correct (i.e., by saying anything derived from non-observation must be nonrational and thus devoid of "real" meaning). You do this by substituting "actual" in for "empirical" or "observable", implying that any discussion involving non-observable concepts is "non-actual" and useless in a philosophical discussion. It is incredibly ironic that you do such a thing yet accuse others of being intellectually dishonest. Ever hear of projection?

Now, hopefully to drive the point home, here is a quote from you:

[ QUOTE ]
You must still be missing the point, because most ways I read this, it just sounds silly. I AM NOT DENYING THE POSSIBLE ACTUALITY OF NONRATIONAL TRUTH CLAIMS. I am merely saying that you cannot confuse actually meaningless claims with those derived from actual observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice your use of the word "meaningless claims" in connection with ideas derived from non-observable concepts. Now, I ask you again:

Do pure mathematicians deal with meaningless claims and/or truth statements because they deal with non-observable concepts? Why or why not?

Is the statement "gravitons mediate gravitational interactions" a meaningless claim because its subject (gravitons) is non-observable? Why or why not?

You did not answer my question previously when you stated "math is a good example of logical meaning that is distinct from actual meaning". I realize you are using the term "actual" in an intellectually dishonest fashion; but, what I want to know is, according to your personal philosophy, are gravitons and concepts that arise in pure mathematics meaningful? In other words, can mathematicians and physicists have discussions regarding these concepts which are unobservable, or are they completely devoid of meaning?

I look forward to your reply, as I'm wondering how you manage to remain consistent in your views without rejecting all of modern mathematics and physics.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the statement "gravitons mediate gravitational interactions" a meaningless claim because its subject (gravitons) is non-observable? Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that is a meaningless claim.