Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLet's dig up the NG for this!
I'm going to dinner. While I'm gone, as a demonstration of your mastery of Christian Logic, provide a proof, or even an explanation, of why any proposition may be validly deduced from a contradiction. I'm not convinced that you can do it, so it will be a worthwhile endeavor for you to try to figure it out. I'll be back to check your progress i ...[text shortened]... " is not a proof or explanation, so don't go dig that up at Christian Logic and repost it here.
Originally posted by ColettiEr. Then you need to provide definitions because, I am here to tell you,
Definitions. Like axioms you can not disprove or prove them, you can only argue they are good or bad ones. Since God is omniscient is part of the definition of God, then it is true "by definition".
that the definition that God is omniscient is far from universal. You are
making assumptions in your 'system' that are unsafe.
Please, for our sake, provide all axioms and definitions so that we
might evaluate your system. And, please address the issue of the contradiction
I have observed.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ColettiSo, you define god.
Definitions. Like axioms you can not disprove or prove them, you can only argue they are good or bad ones. Since God is omniscient is part of the definition of God, then it is true "by definition".
Great.
Where do you get the idea that god even exists in the first place?
Science has removed God, gods, angels, dieties from the equation starting one Plank time after the Big Bang so, what do you need god for?
Originally posted by NemesioTell me who defines terms universally? It isn't important to have terms that are universally agreed with (as if that was possible) than it is to define you terms to start with. People who refuse to define terms are the ones that get away with irrational conclusions.
Er. Then you need to provide definitions because, I am here to tell you,
that the definition that God is omniscient is far from universal. You are
making assumptions in your 'system' that are unsafe.
Please, for our sake, provide all axioms and definitions so that we
might evaluate your system. And, please address the issue of the contradiction
I have observed.
Nemesio
My terms need to be defined by my world-view or in coherence with my world-view. To say God's knowledge is non-contradictory and that God is omniscient is part of a coherent system. It would be irrational to believe in an non-omniscient God if he is also the God of Scripture. That would contradict my axiom, and cause internal system conflicts within my world-view.
And as far as the the contradictions you have observed, read my earlier post. There are no contradictions in God's knowledge. God's Word is the knowledge of God that He has revealed to man in his written Word - a.k.a. Scripture. It can not contain contradictions - so your observation of contradictions proves your "observation" is faulty. There are several points where you may have failed in making you observations, so that is were you need to look.
Please feel free to tell my your axioms and definitions - then we can compair them. It's only fair. 🙂
Originally posted by ColettiI have been reading this thread with great interest. I want to ask a question, so that I understand your basic position. Actually, I’ll put the question in the form of an example that abstracts from any specific issues:
Tell me who defines terms universally? It isn't important to have terms that are universally agreed with (as if that was possible) than it is to define you terms to start with. People who refuse to define terms are the ones that get away with irrational conclusions.
My terms need to be defined by my world-view or in coherence with my world-view. To say ...[text shortened]... eel free to tell my your axioms and definitions - then we can compair them. It's only fair. 🙂
There are two systems (what you would call “worldviews” ):
System 1 (S1) relies on axioms (or, less formally, “assumptions” ) a(1)…a(n). S1 provides answers to all the questions it proposes to answer and is internally consistent.
System 2 (S2) relies on a different set of assumptions b(1)…b(n). S2 provides answers to all the questions it proposes to answer and is internally consistent.
S1 and S2 may hold some assumptions, but not all, in common.
S1 and S2 propose some of the same questions, but not all of the same questions.
With regard to questions common to both systems, at least some such questions are answered differently by each system.
Now, aside from the fact that (a) some questions that are not common to both systems might be of more interest to you (that is, the questions proposed by S1 but not S2, say, are more interesting to you), or (b) you simply find the answers provided by one system to be more “satisfactory” to you (aesthetically pleasing, perhaps) can there be any other criteria, according to your understanding, for choosing one system over the other since they are both internally consistent?
NOTE: I could also propose a “weaker” example, in which either or both S1 and S2 do not answer, thus far, all of the questions they propose, but there is no logical prohibition on their being able to do so with sufficient information.
Originally posted by vistesdGood question.
I have been reading this thread with great interest. I want to ask a question, so that I understand your basic position. Actually, I’ll put the question in the form of an example that abstracts from any specific issues:
There are two systems (what you would call “worldviews” ):
System 1 (S1) relies on axioms (or, less formally, “assumptions” ) a(1)…a ...[text shortened]... e, but there is no logical prohibition on their being able to do so with sufficient information.
If S1 and S2 contradict each other either by their axioms or implications, then one must choose one or the other. There are external questions which might indicate which is better, but if they are both equally coherent and comprehensive, then one can not say one is right and the other wrong without first presuming the correct answer. So it would be begging the question.
But the criteria for choosing between to coherent world-view are external to the world-views. Therefore one can not disprove a perfectly rational and coherent world-view without assuming it is false, one can only evaluate it externally.
Originally posted by Coletti
Tell me who defines terms universally? It isn't important to have terms that are universally agreed with (as if that was possible) than it is to define you terms to start with. People who refuse to define terms are the ones that get away with irrational conclusions.
My point is that, if you are really concerned with evaluating your
worldview, then you need to iterate the details of that position for
review.
That is, we can't assume that you believe God is omniscient from
your axioms because a lot of people hold that God is not omniscient.
The definition of God is hardly static amongst the people in this forum
and, therefore, you have a certain duty to expound upon your
definitions in an effort to avoid confusion and maintain consistency.
My terms need to be defined by my world-view or in coherence with my world-view. To say God's knowledge is non-contradictory and that God is omniscient is part of a coherent system.
I don't know if you agree with this statement, but I'll assume you
do: God never lies. Perhaps you think this is part of your 'coherent'
system.
Given the axiom that God's Word is always true, and given that the
definition of God is that He never lies, how do you explain the fact that
St John reports that Jesus was crucified before the Passover Seder
and that the other three report that He was crucified after it?
It would be irrational to believe in an non-omniscient God if he is also the God of Scripture. That would contradict my axiom, and cause internal system conflicts within my world-view.
This is not true. Perhaps God has revealed all He knows. Or, perhaps
He has revealed stuff He thinks He knows, but could be wrong.
Since your axiom is simply '2. The foundation of knowledge is God's
revelation,' this makes no comment as to whether the knowledge is
true, whether God knows it is true, whether God intends you to believe
it is true and is not. All it indicates (without clear definitions) is that
Scripture is what God wants us to know.
so your observation of contradictions proves your "observation" is faulty. There are several points where you may have failed in making you observations, so that is were you need to look.
Please explain how clearly delineated timeframes about the Passover
Seder can be faulty.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KneverKnightUtter nonsense. Science deals with material realities. It does not address the existance of the spiritual.
So, you define god.
Great.
Where do you get the idea that god even exists in the first place?
Science has removed God, gods, angels, dieties from the equation starting one Plank time after the Big Bang so, what do you need god for?
Of course, some absurd claims by religious zealots have been dispelled by science, and certain zealots distort science in order to impugn its credibility. But, science does not dispute the existence of God. Nor does authentic religious faith find itself in conflict with science.
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioTo presume that God's knowledge could be wrong is to presume my world-view is incoherent. It is self-defeating. You want to arguing against my world-view by assuming things that are not entailed by my world-view as I have defined it.
Originally posted by Coletti
[b]Tell me who defines terms universally? It isn't important to have terms that are universally agreed with (as if that was possible) than it is to define you terms to start with. People who refuse to define terms are the ones that get away with irrational conclusions.
My point is that, if you are really concerne ...[text shortened]... se explain how clearly delineated timeframes about the Passover
Seder can be faulty.
Nemesio[/b]
Since defining God as non-omniscient or limited in knowledge, or having false beliefs - would lead automatically to incoherence in my world-view, then it would be irrational for me define God as non-omniscient.
I do not define God as omniscient as an assumption, I do so because it would be incoherent to define God otherwise.
Any proposition that is a result of my world-view can not contradict any other. If I find two contradictory propositions, I know one is wrong. That is a necessary implication of assuming the laws of logic and necessary inference.
It does not matter if you agree with my definition of God, it matters that my definition of God is coherent according my to world-view, and it is both clear and consistent. No further justification is needed.
Originally posted by NemesioIt does not matter. If you are presenting two contradictory propositions which you assert are from Scripture - you are wrong. Only one can be true and the other is false. And since that is the case, the Christian goes with the one that does not lead to further internal incoherence.
Please explain how clearly delineated timeframes about the Passover Seder can be faulty.
Nemesio
By definition of God and logic, they can not both be true - to presume otherwise is irrational.
Basically - your assertion that Scripture contains contradiction is irrational, or your view of God is irrational. Or maybe your view of God leads to skepticism or irrational-ism. Either one can not know anything, or God is irrational.
Originally posted by ColettiAs so often has been the case in the past, you’ve given me a lot to chew on. Just these brief comments for now—
Good question.
If S1 and S2 contradict each other either by their axioms or implications, then one must choose one or the other. There are external questions which might indicate which is better, but if they are both equally coherent and comprehensive, then one can not say one is right and the other wrong without first presuming the correct answer. So i ...[text shortened]... ional and coherent world-view without assuming it is false, one can only evaluate it externally.
(1) It strikes me that—absent further knowledge not currently available—one might sometimes have to accept two systems which at least in part contradict one another, depending on which questions one is asking. I am thinking here of quantum mechanics and relativity (with the understanding that scientists are pursuing, e.g., via string theory, a “theory of everything” that would encompass both). In such a case, one’s “worldview” would include more than one logical system, each with its own axiomatic base, each providing answers to questions that the other may not address, or be judged to not address as well. Perhaps no such example exists of “parallel complementarities” in religion or philosophy? I would think there would be…
(2) To reiterate a point that I think we agreed upon some time ago, comparing two systems for “equal comprehensiveness” depends at least somewhat on how one views the relevance of the questions that each system proposes to answer.
(3) I think I get confused with the term “worldview.” I think I have been assuming a system that is judged to be sufficiently “holistic” as not to admit of external criteria, and is hence something of a closed system. Any external criteria would either involve its own set of assumptions (e.g., the value and relevance of empirical observations), or be subjective—which is why I used the phrase “aesthetically pleasing,” a factor which I would not consider trivial.
Originally posted by vistesd(1) I think I agree with this in so far as one can agree that two systems are possibly true - or like Euclidean and Hyperbolic Geometry - we can agree with them in practice if not at the same time. But with world-views that are comprehensive it becomes more difficult to agree with both or switch between them without become a bit crazy
As so often has been the case in the past, you’ve given me a lot to chew on. Just these brief comments for now—
(1) It strikes me that—absent further knowledge not currently available—one might sometimes have to accept two systems which at least in part contradict one another, depending on which questions one is asking. I am thinking here of quantum mec ...[text shortened]... is why I used the phrase “aesthetically pleasing,” a factor which I would not consider trivial.
(2) I agree with.
(3) The external criteria are "external" in the sense they can not prove or disprove a coherent world-view but can be used to compare two or more worldviews. The external criteria are a bit subjective so they can never perfectly destroy any world-view - they are inductive arguments. The stronger the better, but never absolute proofs.
Originally posted by ColettiSo, in such a case, one is simply operating from a worldview different from yours, and we're back to choice based on external criteria? (I think I have to learn to read "from within the terms of my worldview" even when you do not continually restate it, which would be as wearisome as I found having to spell presupp... 😉 ).
To presume that God's knowledge could be wrong is to presume my world-view is incoherent. It is self-defeating. You want to arguing against my world-view by assuming things that are not entailed by my world-view as I have defined it.
Since defining God as non-omniscient or limited in knowledge, or having false beliefs - would lead automatically to inco ...[text shortened]... rding my to world-view, and it is both clear and consistent. No further justification is needed.
Either one can not know anything, or God is irrational.
This strikes me as a false dichotomy. One can know something, without knowing everything. Anomalies and gaps in our knowledge (or bounds to our knowledge) are not the same thing.
Is it safe to assume, Col, that your understanding of Biblical inerrancy (non-contradiction) does not extend to historical anaomalies in the text—that is, that you are not a “historicist-literalist?”