Originally posted by robbie carrobie…For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the THINGS MADE, .. .… (my emphasis)
oh deluded one his character and attributes are revealed in scripture, which by your own admission you have not read, therfore it remains unintelligible to you and also in the physical creation, romans 1:20 states,
For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship,
That implicitly uses a circular argument: what reason do you have to believe that those “THINGS” that you perceive are “MADE” (by “God&rdquo😉? -answer -no rational reason. The propositions conclusion (which is “his invisible qualities are clearly seen&rdquo😉 is implicitly assumed in its premise (which is stated as: “they are perceived by the THINGS MADE&rdquo😉. that makes it a circular argument and thus flawed:
http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/LogCircArg.html
“A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument”
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonlol, dear Mr. Hamilton, who else made them? for in the absence of any creditable alternative, we ourselves have no other alternative but to conclude that God made them, therefore your assumption is flawed and unreasonable, illogical and without basis! if you came upon a house, would you conclude that it 'just happened', no then why do you state the same with the infinitely more complex and spectacular physical creation?
[b]…For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the THINGS MADE, .. .… (my emphasis)
That implicitly uses a circular argument: what reason do you have to believe that those “THINGS” that you perceive are “MADE” (by “God&rdquo😉? -answer -no rational reason. The propositions conclusion ...[text shortened]... lar argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument”[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…lol, dear Mr. Hamilton, WHO else made them?
lol, dear Mr. Hamilton, who else made them? for in the absence of any creditable alternative, we ourselves have no other alternative but to conclude that God made them, therefore your assumption is flawed and unreasonable, illogical and without basis! if you came upon a house, would you conclude that it 'just happened', no then why do you state the same with the infinitely more complex and spectacular physical creation?
. .… (my emphasis)
“WHO”? or “WHAT”? -you make the assumption (not based on reason) that it must be a “WHO” in the question which makes the question flawed. You might as well ask “what deity made them?” or even “what god made them?” . How do you know it was a “WHO” that made the Earth, sun, etc and not a "WHAT"?
…for in the absence of any creditable alternative .…
What “absence”? just replace the “WHO” in your question with a “WHAT”.
….you came upon a house, would you conclude that it 'just happened', no then why do you state the same with the infinitely more complex and spectacular physical creation?..…
Answer -some things come from people and some things come from natural processes. Examples:
A house comes from people.
A snowflake comes from natural processes.
The fact there are more complex things than houses that come from natural processes is irrelevant.
Is there any law of physics or any logical reason at all that says that there is a limit to the “complexity” of what can be created through natural processes? -answer -none.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHow can it be BASED upon the confidence DERIVED from his past behaviour when you haven’t observed his past behaviour and there is no evidence/reason to believe that he exists?
…I'm assuming you are complaining about the highlighted quote?
. .…
No -and I apologies -I copied and pasted that highlighted quote into my post by mistake and somehow I didn’t notice until it was too late.
…As Christians, we have faith in the future promises of God BASED upon the confidence DERIVED from both his past behaviour and KN ...[text shortened]...
How can it be “known” if it is not based on evidence/reason and you haven’t even seen it yet?
Short answer is that we know of God's past behavior through the accounts written.
We can attribute the physical world to any number of things; the most plausible explanation is the one offered by the Bible. It is clean, uncluttered by contradiction and wholly consistent with similar drives clearly evident in man. In fact, the ONLY obstacle to our better understanding of the creation/chaos/re-creation model is our limited understanding.
In light of what is seen both in creation and in God's historical dealings with man--- both consistent with His character as revealed by Bible doctrine--- we can "see" evidence upon which to base our confidence.
Knowledge is a revelation, not an evolution.
it seems pretty obvious that it is up to each individual to find whatever the divine feels like, and also that you can't talk about it to anyone else, unless they have had the same or similar experience. language requires that everyone talking has had the same or similar experiences that ground language in reality. Otherwise, it ends up more like a monty python skit than a real discussion.
so, if you don't feel "the big whatever", and you decide not to keep looking, you won't find anything. but most people who keep looking end up finding "something" and external research or proof won't help much, until you experience it. "the finger that points to the moon, isn't the moon"
my experience is that we are much more connected than we realize, and that there is a lot going on in this world that we cannot see, but can feel, however crudely. And as I practice becoming aware of this, my ability to feel, to be aware of my totality increases. It changes who I am, or maybe, it ruins the limited ideas that I had of myself, and challenges me to redefine who I am and what I am capable of becoming. Is that divinity, or god? I think it is me becoming more aware of how I am connected to, and a part, of everything.
Looking to others to prove to you something you should/could explore on your own is a cop out., if you really wanna know, "there is nothing for finding like looking.."
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH…Short answer is that we know of God's past behaviour through the accounts written.
[b]How can it be BASED upon the confidence DERIVED from his past behaviour when you haven’t observed his past behaviour and there is no evidence/reason to believe that he exists?
Short answer is that we know of God's past behavior through the accounts written.
We can attribute the physical world to any number of things; the most plausible explanati evidence upon which to base our confidence.
Knowledge is a revelation, not an evolution.[/b]
. .…
How do you know that what is in the written accounts correspond to reality?
Just because someone wrote something does not mean it is true.
I could write on a sheet of paper the words:
“The words written on this sheet of paper are the words of God.
God said he did not create life”
I could then claim that I believe these words to be true because this is my written accounts of what I was told by God.
If you ask me “how do you know that you couldn’t have been mistaken“ or "How do you know that my written accounts correspond to reality?” I could answer “The short answer is that I know God didn’t create life through the accounts written (by me) 😛
…It is clean, uncluttered .…
Clean of what? uncluttered of what?
The Bible is vague because it make statements that have more than one interpretation.
….In light of what is seen both in creation ..…
How do you know that the world you see is “his creation”? -answer, you cannot.
….and in God's historical dealings with man..…
This just brings us back to the question: How do you know that what is in the written accounts correspond to reality? -answer, you cannot.
….--- we can "see" evidence upon which to base our confidence. .…
No we can’t. There is no credible evidence to "see". The mere fact that the universe exists and also the mere fact it is written that "he" exists is not “evidence” of "his" existence.
…Knowledge is a revelation, not an evolution..…
Scientific knowledge evolves with new data/reason. If there was no evolution of knowledge then we could all still be believing that the Earth is flat. Isn’t it “knowledge” that the earth is round?
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…Short answer is that we know of God's past behaviour through the accounts written.How do you know that what is in the written accounts correspond to reality?
. .…
How do you know that what is in the written accounts correspond to reality?
Just because someone wrote something does not mean it is true.
I could write on a sheet of paper the words:
“The words written on this sheet of paper are the words of God.
...[text shortened]... ll be believing that the Earth is flat. Isn’t it “knowledge” that the earth is round?[/b]
To date, nothing substantive has been offered or found which undeniably refutes the Bible's agreement with what is known as real.
Clean of what? uncluttered of what?
Contradiction and/or nonsense.
The Bible is vague because it make statements that have more than one interpretation.
In terms of application, yes. It terms of content, no.
How do you know that the world you see is “his creation”? -answer, you cannot.
For my humble level of reasoning ability, the answer has already been resolved.
This just brings us back to the question: How do you know that what is in the written accounts correspond to reality? -answer, you cannot.
Again, nothing to date has been shown to quantitatively refute any biblical account.
Scientific knowledge evolves with new data/reason. If there was no evolution of knowledge then we could all still be believing that the Earth is flat. Isn’t it “knowledge” that the earth is round?
Scientific knowledge isn't knowledge, per se; it is our loose approximation of what temporarily passes as fact, or information. Again, temporary is the key concept when it comes to our advances in science--- that which is observed and/or reasoned.
Knowledge is that category of truth which is unchanging, eternal... as is truth itself.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH…How do you know that what is in the written accounts correspond to reality?
[b]How do you know that what is in the written accounts correspond to reality?
To date, nothing substantive has been offered or found which undeniably refutes the Bible's agreement with what is known as real.
Clean of what? uncluttered of what?
Contradiction and/or nonsense.
The Bible is vague because it make statements that have more .
Knowledge is that category of truth which is unchanging, eternal... as is truth itself.
To date, nothing substantive has been offered or found which undeniably refutes the Bible's agreement with what is known as real.
. .…[/b]
I think what you meant by the word “substantive” above is “objective”? if so, then your intended statement is:
“…To date, nothing objective has been offered or found which undeniably refutes the Bible's agreement with what is known as real…. “
There is two things wrong with this:
Firstly, nothing objective has been offered or found which undeniably refutes that there is a Santa. So does that mean we should think there probably is a Santa? 😛
Secondly, “…undeniably refutes the Bible's agreement with what is KNOWN as real…. “ (my emphasis)
-how can it be “KNOWN as real” if it is not only unproven but there is no logic/evidence to suggest that it is even probable?
-again, you stated premise assumes its own conclusion to be true! -this is a circular argument thus logically flawed.
…Clean of what? uncluttered of what?
CONTRADICTION and/or NONSENSE .… (my emphasises)
Firstly, do you mean logical CONTRADICTION? -if so, given that many of the verses are vague and there is disagreement of which interpretation is the correct one, how do you rationally and logically verify in your own mind that it is free of logical contradiction?
-in other words, how do you know it is free of logical contradiction?
Secondly, free what kind of “NONSENSE”? -I mean, how do you define “NONSENSE” in this context? -is it simply anything that contradicts the word of the Bible? -if not, then what is you criteria for defining what is “nonsense” and what isn’t?
….The Bible is vague because it make statements that have more than one interpretation.
In terms of application, yes. It terms of content, no.
..…
That is simply not true -there is often disagreement of which interpretation of a verse in a Bible is the correct one. Verses are part of the “content” of the Bible.
-do you deny either of these two facts? -if so, which one? -and explain.
….Scientific knowledge evolves with new data/reason. If there was no evolution of knowledge then we could all still be believing that the Earth is flat. Isn’t it “knowledge” that the earth is round?
Scientific knowledge isn't knowledge, per se; it is our loose APPROXIMATION of what TEMPORARILY passes as fact, or information. temporary is the key concept when it comes to our advances in science
.… (my emphasises)
So it is a “loose APPROXIMATION” that Saturn has moons? 😛
And it only “TEMPORARILY passes as fact” that the Earth is round? 😛
When I said that scientific knowledge evolves, I was not implying that EVERY scientific hypothesis is eventually proven wrong!!! -because, given the good evidence for so many of them, that would be totally absurd! Obviously only SOME hypothesis will either be proven wrong or require modifying in the light of new data but NOT ALL because some hypothesis have such good and flawless evidence and flawless reason to back them up that the probability of them being proven wrong should be rationally assumed to be vanishingly small -examples: 1, evolution 2, relativity 3, the Earth is round.
-Removed-when discussing the meaning of faith, reasonable people choose the meaning known to all, both muslims, jews, believers(which it seems you reduced to just christians), atheists, satanists, etc. it is the meaning found in the dictionary. by that meaning faith can be discussed by the unfaithful too, not just by the ones who consider themselves the only ones worthy.
also, what you said doesn't contradict at all the definitions hamilton, me or anyone else has given.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHgiordano bruno was burnt to the stake for claiming the earth is revolving around the sun. do you still claim biblical truth is unchanging?
[b]How do you know that what is in the written accounts correspond to reality?
To date, nothing substantive has been offered or found which undeniably refutes the Bible's agreement with what is known as real.
Clean of what? uncluttered of what?
Contradiction and/or nonsense.
The Bible is vague because it make statements that have more ...[text shortened]... .
Knowledge is that category of truth which is unchanging, eternal... as is truth itself.
"Scientific knowledge isn't knowledge, per se; it is our loose approximation of what temporarily passes as fact, or information."
this is wrong of course. knowledge isn't temporary. if something has been proven wrong then it wasn't knowledge in the first place. likewise true for scientific knowledge. Is it a loose approximation that 1+1=2? Is it a loose aproximation the fact that what powers the sun is fusion, but Genesis knowledge is unchanging, eternal? is that what you are saying?
btw, you created a new category of fanatic: the one that not only considers the bible "eternal" but holds science as temporary and a loose approximation. Correct me if this is wrong and you do not deserve to be placed in this category.
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi…if something has been proven wrong then it wasn't knowledge in the first place. likewise true for scientific knowledge. . .…
giordano bruno was burnt to the stake for claiming the earth is revolving around the sun. do you still claim biblical truth is unchanging?
"Scientific knowledge isn't knowledge, per se; it is our loose approximation of what temporarily passes as fact, or information."
this is wrong of course. knowledge isn't temporary. if something has been proven wrong mation. Correct me if this is wrong and you do not deserve to be placed in this category.
I couldn’t agreed more 🙂
-which means I shouldn’t have said:
“Scientific knowledge evolves”
because that is not literally true: what I should have said and what I really meant by that was:
“Scientific theory evolves”
So I stand corrected.
Originally posted by owlightYes, that's what I am saying, only I would have worded it a little differently.
Perhaps the original poster meant to say...'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
There are specific differences.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi"The word of God(bible) is the word of god (what god says) because (here comes the why) God said so (where?) in the word of God(the bible and we have come full circle)"
no, actually i tried to summarize why some people hold the bible to be entirely true.
"The word of God(bible) is the word of god (what god says) because (here comes the why) God said so (where?) in the word of God(the bible and we have come full circle)"
Sorry, it is just one circling. i exaggerated.
So basically, some use bible to prove the bib ...[text shortened]... cept1 is the same as concept2 so what point is there to this endeavour. we need a new concept.
But it makes perfect sense.
The reason you don't like it is because you don't like it because it doesn't fit in with your subjective view of reality.
Originally posted by josephwbut why is my view of life more subjective than yours? why does it make sense to believe the bible literally? why will god be offended if you don't believe every last word in it? how do you know god personally removed any embellishment from that book so that the only thing that remains is his absolute true words? how do you know god isn't testing us to see if we can use our intelligence(the same one he gave us) to discover the truth? what would be the point in making us curious and intelligent if we cannot discover anything that contradicts a book he may not have written all by himself?
[b]"The word of God(bible) is the word of god (what god says) because (here comes the why) God said so (where?) in the word of God(the bible and we have come full circle)"
But it makes perfect sense.
The reason you don't like it is because you don't like it because it doesn't fit in with your subjective view of reality.[/b]
i believe in god because it makes for a much more pleasant universe, because i find it comforting to know there is a creator and an afterlife, someone benevolent and not just chance. I believe in Jesus because there actually was a jesus of nazareth who was a good person and preached love and died in a final act of non-violence. But what other source than the bible do i have for the Noah's flood? What other source do i have to say that the sun was created after the plants and the earth(not only that but i have reliable sources telling me it is not true).
The narrative of the bible is not important. Important are the lessons that can be learned from the narrative. Listen to god. Be nice to strangers. Maintain an open mind towards the unexplainable. Have faith.
These can be accomplished without actually believing in a big boat, in little vegetarian t-rexes on that boat, in adam and eve. They are simply fables, the cricket never talked to the ant, but we all know what the moral behind that story is.
Originally posted by josephwThere are however some subtle problems. The largest and most glaring problem of all is that there is no such physical entity as "The Bible". Instead "The Bible" is a hypothetical entity whose reality can only be guessed at and is constantly under dispute. There are several ways I could try to find out the contents of the true "The Bible" none of which I find satisfactory:
[b]"The word of God(bible) is the word of god (what god says) because (here comes the why) God said so (where?) in the word of God(the bible and we have come full circle)"
But it makes perfect sense.
The reason you don't like it is because you don't like it because it doesn't fit in with your subjective view of reality.[/b]
1. Ask you.
2. Read the English translations of ancient copies that are available to me, and read various comments from authorities on the subject.
3. Read an English translation whilst praying for guidance.
One reason I find all such methods wanting is that none of them seems to stand up to even the most basic scientific scrutiny. If one particular method worked effectively for all people then I should be able to ask two such people who had used the method and reliably get the same result but invariably every person I ask has a different understanding of the Bible frequently vastly different.
One other obvious problem is you would not accept the same logic if it was applied to a different religious manuscript from your chosen one thus showing that the logic used is flawed as flawless logic if must always work and there is no clause in your logic that explains why it should only work with the Bible.