Evidence for God from Science

B. W. wrote:Objective Morality must be revealed. Solomon pondered this and figured out that it comes by revealed objective truth such as..

Eccl 3:1 There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven--
Eccl 3:2 A time to give birth and a time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.
Eccl 3:3 A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up.
Eccl 3:4 A time to weep and a time to laugh; A time to mourn and a time to dance.
Eccl 3:5 A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones; A time to embrace and a time to shun embracing.
Eccl 3:6 A time to search and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep and a time to throw away.
Eccl 3:7 A time to tear apart and a time to sew together; A time to be silent and a time to speak.
Eccl 3:8 A time to love and a time to hate; A time for war and a time for peace.

Objective Morality helps reveal what time it is.

So what is time? A rhythm to kill, heal, love and hate to?

Maybe it is my time to be interested in religion as a whole, atheism included, as opposed to faithfully committed to one ever developing doctrine. Reading C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity and Saint Augustine's Confessions it does seem that I'm not the only one in his late twenties still rather resistant to commitment of a very particular God. Maybe one day it will click but it does seem a little like trying to put a square peg into a round hole in my brain, pretend neither my brain or the peg is squishy to feel the full force of the comparison.

B. W. wrote:So how will you stand Pros ???

On my feet, or I might kneel. I'm not sure. Time will tell, possibly with the help of objective morality to reveal it.

Proinsias wrote:

B. W. wrote:So how will you stand Pros ???

On my feet, or I might kneel. I'm not sure. Time will tell, possibly with the help of objective morality to reveal it.

Wow, I go away for a couple of weeks and you sound like you're a changed man Proin, I should go away more often .

Time to book a round the world trip, you'll be doing a good deed

Glory Be!
-
-
-

Just came across an interesting essay on the objective validity of the principle of contradiction. It's 15 pdf pages long but sums up much of what I wish I could say in relation to the law of non-contradiction.

Edwards Cunze looks into the validity of the self-evident proposition, that a wrong idea may be as self evident as a true one. He argues that in the history of philosophy that which has been argued to be self evident has not been a guarantee of truth. If a contradiction is evident to one person and not another, does this say anything about the law of non-contradiction? And if the principle of contradiction is self evident there is at least the possibility that other self evident propositions may more completely explain things as they are than the law of contradiction. He made some of Hegel's theories actually make sense to me, I've not tackled Hegel's writing myself so not sure how accurate he is but it does tie in with the rather fuzzy picture I have of Hegelian thought - a logical step beyond formal logic and it's entire basis upon the law of non-contradition.

Not so much a denial of the principle of contradiction but more an appeal that the principle of contradiction may be considered as something which, whilst often being relevant, is not an absolute. Essentially in my view that there may be more to understanding the world than viewing it through the lenses of both Christianity and Classical Aristotelean logic simultaneously, that schools of other philosophic and religious traditions may have some relevance to our understanding and experience even if they do go beyond the LNC, although he does cite the work of Nicolas of Cusa as an example of a brilliant Christian mind calling into to question the law of noncontradiction. That whilst the principle of contradiction may indeed by rather handy in practical life but what is the basis for extending it to God, the absolute, the infinite?

All in all an interesting read, and nice to hear that I'm not alone in not absolutely adhering to the LNC.

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/C ... iction.pdf

jlay: I read Ravi's Jesus amongst other gods recently. I found it a decent read but not particularly convincing, what I did come away from the book feeling was that Christianity is ideal for Ravi. He finds it immensely satisfying. He's also a very likeable chap. Buddhism is dispatched in a series of logical black holes and hinduism is just too rich in variety to take seriously, he makes it clear that he's not satisfied by ideas like karma and rebirth but doesn't in my view give much in the way of refutation of them.

Not sure if I'll read Turek, Ravi I find very personable and likeable, I've watched a few of Turek's youtube vids and he rubs me up the wrong way.

Proinsias,

I am the biggest dumb beater of the law of non contradiction here. A pure Christian worldview is impossible without it. At any time that you concede a plural answer in any meaningful proposition, you've already lost the battle for Christianity. You automatically accept eastern philosophies once you concede a plural truth claim.

I will be glad to point out that these pluralists only have examples of non propositional knowledge to support their claims. These claims hold truth to the self or the "objective" self.

Most here just don't understand the proposition of objective. Objective is an all claim. All means all and that's all that all means.

I suggest you look into the principle of self stultification. Look up this book called "Its true for you, but not for me"

Also, I wish people would stop describing God as "the infinite". That's inaccurate. Infinity is an idea from the minds of man. The implications of infinity is pluralism and relativism. Both are enemies of Christianity.

There's an article by WLC on it. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=5531

domokunrox wrote:Proinsias,

I am the biggest dumb beater of the law of non contradiction here. A pure Christian worldview is impossible without it. At any time that you concede a plural answer in any meaningful proposition, you've already lost the battle for Christianity. You automatically accept eastern philosophies once you concede a plural truth claim.

I will be glad to point out that these pluralists only have examples of non propositional knowledge to support their claims. These claims hold truth to the self or the "objective" self.

Most here just don't understand the proposition of objective. Objective is an all claim. All means all and that's all that all means.

I suggest you look into the principle of self stultification. Look up this book called "Its true for you, but not for me"

Also, I wish people would stop describing God as "the infinite". That's inaccurate. Infinity is an idea from the minds of man. The implications of infinity is pluralism and relativism. Both are enemies of Christianity.

There's an article by WLC on it. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=5531

And the old Dom is back.

Byblos,

Not sure what you mean by the old dom. I wasn't aware there was a new dom.

I am not sure what you have a problem with. I draw my conclusions and responses from reading and learning from other apologetics and Christian philosophers in regards to philosophical implications of what it personhood is in contrast to what the nature of God is and his relation to the ultimate reality we perceive or intellectualize.

I did not merely assert a view without any sort of basis for it. WLC isn't just anybody and he directly addresses Hegel and others who have base any part of their philosophical view on his ideas. We are in an age where analytic philosophy is needed to defend our Christianity and sometimes we will have to answer the bell and defend those who are defenseless.

I speak sometimes with strength and quickness because quite frankly I
1. Have limited time, so when I step up to the plate, I need to hit a homerun. I don't have time to be completely methodological with inquiries and long handed explanations of a Plato academy idea that does not exist. Yet, its used to describe a being that philosophically exists.
2. Infinity is a massive sore spot to me. I have a sister in law who is lost to apostasy. She has a Guru and all. All due to this misconception of "the infinite".
3. Infinity shouldn't even be in the dictionary because it describes absolutely nothing. There isn't an example of anything ACTUALLY infinite. God is best described as eternal, but even eternal is listed as a synonym for infinite. Which is again wrong. This is all a misunderstanding that only further complicates our Christian defense to the secular intellectuals in the world.

I mean no offense to anyone. I simply will step in and defend my Christian brothers and sisters because I love them.

Proinsias,
I was reading the PDF, but whoever wrote it lost me at "various degrees of truth". How does it make sense to say something is partly true, or true for someone but not for someone else?

domokunrox wrote:Byblos,

Not sure what you mean by the old dom. I wasn't aware there was a new dom.

We were hoping there were (a new Dom that is).

domokunrox wrote:I am not sure what you have a problem with.

Here's my problem,

domokunrox wrote:I am the biggest dumb beater of the law of non contradiction here.

domokunrox wrote:Most here just don't understand the proposition of objective.

Yeah, yeah, I know, you said most, but let's face it, you mean all don't you. Claiming you're an expert, Dom, doesn't making you one. Claiming to be a philosopher doesn't making you one. You want to be effective in your arguments Dom, and be taken seriously, first remove the self-made crown off your head, it is rather degrading (to you) and insulting (to others).

Really Byblos?

I just noticed. My auto correct put "dumb" instead of "drum". I do not mean that I beat dummies, lol. Please don't interpret it that way, please. To be more accurate, I concede that I may not be the biggest advocate of the law of non contradiction here. I don't know that for a fact, but I have been very vocal with it since I have been here and have not seen anyone else use it often to knock down these pluralist knowledge claims. This is how I base my statements. Philosophy does very little in establishing solid knowledge unless it speaks in absolutes or becomes a premise to conclude absolute knowledge.

Byblos, don't put words in my mouth. I do not mean all with any remote sincerity. Any philosopher understands these implications. My observation here leads me to believe most since I have been here. I have yet to read anywhere someone define objective and exhaust energy in preserving its definition while discussing the issues at hand. Little by little I see distortions of truth claims from even the most well versed thinkers here who do very little analytical thought to the phrasing of words.

And I understand, I get lazy too sometimes. I can't fault anyone for being busy. There's a great deal of life that we go though and so we need to hurry and move on. I have posted some things where I said, eh, probably should have thought it over more or explained it better. But then I would have to basically write an essay here and no one wants that. I am totally honest. I am not a good essay writer. I think less is more is appropriate which is why I have taken a step back here. Also, words are extremely impersonal and I generally dislike how ideas could come across.

I understand and I hope you understand that speaking in terms of logic WILL seem very dry to emotional problems. We are emotional creatures. I often have to remind myself that Jesus wept just like we all do. I really am trying here, brother.

You just seem like you already made your mind up about me. We're different, I get it. Do you? Can we just get past that?

Echoside thinks differently, but I can appreciate his input. I think he defines things rather strangely, but I admire his ability to notice things that seldom get noticed. I actually really like him despite that we walked away from that discussion with no handshake. He would be an excellent defender for Christ if he wanted to, and that's a very big and sincere compliment.

domokunrox wrote:Really Byblos?

I just noticed. My auto correct put "dumb" instead of "drum". I do not mean that I beat dummies, lol. Please don't interpret it that way, please. To be more accurate, I concede that I may not be the biggest advocate of the law of non contradiction here. I don't know that for a fact, but I have been very vocal with it since I have been here and have not seen anyone else use it often to knock down these pluralist knowledge claims. This is how I base my statements. Philosophy does very little in establishing solid knowledge unless it speaks in absolutes or becomes a premise to conclude absolute knowledge.

Byblos, don't put words in my mouth. I do not mean all with any remote sincerity. Any philosopher understands these implications. My observation here leads me to believe most since I have been here. I have yet to read anywhere someone define objective and exhaust energy in preserving its definition while discussing the issues at hand. Little by little I see distortions of truth claims from even the most well versed thinkers here who do very little analytical thought to the phrasing of words.

And I understand, I get lazy too sometimes. I can't fault anyone for being busy. There's a great deal of life that we go though and so we need to hurry and move on. I have posted some things where I said, eh, probably should have thought it over more or explained it better. But then I would have to basically write an essay here and no one wants that. I am totally honest. I am not a good essay writer. I think less is more is appropriate which is why I have taken a step back here. Also, words are extremely impersonal and I generally dislike how ideas could come across.

I understand and I hope you understand that speaking in terms of logic WILL seem very dry to emotional problems. We are emotional creatures. I often have to remind myself that Jesus wept just like we all do. I really am trying here, brother.

You just seem like you already made your mind up about me. We're different, I get it. Do you? Can we just get past that?

Echoside thinks differently, but I can appreciate his input. I think he defines things rather strangely, but I admire his ability to notice things that seldom get noticed. I actually really like him despite that we walked away from that discussion with no handshake. He would be an excellent defender for Christ if he wanted to, and that's a very big and sincere compliment.

You are preaching to the choir sister. And my issue was not with the 'dumb' use, in fact it was pointed out privately that it very well may have been a mistake where you meant to say 'drum' beater, not dumb beater. My issue is with the self-proclamation attitude in general. You haven't been here that long to know what logical methods we've argued and used. I know from my side alone, I've used the law of non-contradiction at least a dozen times. Other mods have used it much more than that and much more effectively than I have. We're not asking you to lose your zeal Dom, but your attitude is sorely lacking a little adjustment.

ohh that dumb beater gave me a great laugh, Great mental picture in the ol noggin

Byblos,

You do realize that you're suggesting an appeal to accomplishment, right?
Whats your email? So I can send you my photoshopped PHD in Bible and Philosophy.

It doesn't look like you disagree with what I say, you just disagree with the way I say it. You want conformity to what is suitable to YOU. Because its not, you resort to spite my character.

You could say there is a more tactful approach then my way. I don't deny that at all.
I give dry answers on a cell phone that could "correct" my misspellings. You don't have to like me. I am not holding a gun to you telling you to get on your knees and worship me.

You're going to need to just turn down your sensitivity dial a bit. I cite from Christian philosophy and apologetics. I have no problem sharing my source at the time or titles of books to back my claims. You can take it and find an insightful perspective or don't. Its up to you.

domokunrox wrote:Byblos,

You do realize that you're suggesting an appeal to accomplishment, right?
Whats your email? So I can send you my photoshopped PHD in Bible and Philosophy.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Yet again I will state, it is not your accomplishments or your credentials that are in question (photoshopped or otherwise).

domokunrox wrote:It doesn't look like you disagree with what I say, you just disagree with the way I say it.

Now you got it.

domokunrox wrote:You want conformity to what is suitable to YOU.

Suitable to the forum's discussion guidelines, which the mods are tasked with upholding to the best of our abilities.

domokunrox wrote:Because its not, you resort to spite my character.

I said nothing about your character, I don't know you. My point was that you don't know many here either so quit making assumptions about them.

domokunrox wrote:You could say there is a more tactful approach then my way. I don't deny that at all.
I give dry answers on a cell phone that could "correct" my misspellings. You don't have to like me. I am not holding a gun to you telling you to get on your knees and worship me.

That's the funny thing, personally I do like you, I enjoy reading your posts. It's the preaching from the throne I don't care for much.

domokunrox wrote:You're going to need to just turn down your sensitivity dial a bit.

You misunderstand me. This is not a request.

domokunrox wrote:I cite from Christian philosophy and apologetics. I have no problem sharing my source at the time or titles of books to back my claims. You can take it and find an insightful perspective or don't. Its up to you.

Good, no problem there.