Originally posted by whodeyYou're not making any sense. First you claimed that 'we' didn't invent and proclaim these things, now your telling me we in fact did. Which one is it?
This "we" is a culmination of writings over the centuries. This "we" is a collection of testimony from a wide range of people who all testify to the God of the Bible. Like it or not, such testimony is evidence.
Of course, the text also contain history, some of which is verifiable. It also contains a myriad of prophesy, some of which can be seen to have ...[text shortened]... dditional evidence.
Does such evidence prove anything? Nope, it's just evidence is all.
I can use your exact same logic and apply it to the Greek myths and proclaim that is evidence.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobMy point is that either God inspired man to write these things or he did not. Of course, the Ten Commandments were said to be written with the very finger of God, and would be the only actual direct writings. Of course, then there is Jesus who is said to be God in the flesh. We have his words that were written down by others.
You're not making any sense. First you claimed that 'we' didn't invent and proclaim these things, now your telling me we in fact did. Which one is it?
I can use your exact same logic and apply it to the Greek myths and proclaim that is evidence.
Would it have been better for Jesus to write down those things himself? It seems to me that witnesses are better, at least it is in a court of law.
As far as the Greek gods, you are correct, this could count as evidence for their religion as well. The trouble is, is that no one follows these gods anymore nor hold their teachings and writings with much great esteem. As a result, that religion is dead for all intensive purposes. It would then seem to reason that the gods behind that religion are dead in the lives of men and probably never existed bo begin with.
2 edits
What do you believe? - Revision 1.4
1) Something? 2) Nothing. 3) Unsure. 4) Nobody else's biz. 5) None of the above. 6) All of the above. 7) Please repeat the question. 8) Seems I forgot. 9) Everything. 10) Those things I can see, touch, taste, smell. 11) Only things I can measure, weigh and test in the lab. 12) Facts with narrow parameters. 13) I'm still thinking. 14) Sermons in the general forum Thread 143629. 15) The Apostles' Creed. 16) Some of the stuff I don't reject. 17) Nobody else's biz or entertainment. 18) "2) Nothing"... as logically and convincingly expanded and expressed by Void Spirit: "I don't have any belief. I hold none" of what Webster has defined as "A state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing..." 19) I do believe and have placed my confidence and trust in the impeccable person of the Risen Christ. 20) I also have enormous respect for the level of clarity contained within Void Spirit's diametrically opposed personal position statement... and believe his objectivity echoes C.S. Lewis' own rigorous academic search for believable and durable absolute truth. Lewis' pilgrimage out from naked bondage and atheistic darkness was eventually documented in his highly readable, painstakingly honest and insightful slender volume entitled, "Mere Christianity" five decades or so ago. 21) I believe this lively thread has probably run its course and seriously doubt it's got the legs to achieve much more than to spiral downward in ugly vectors of vindictive personality attack. My vote is that we exit on a high note. Yours?
Bobby
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHaving gone through this exercise, and having answered this question, are you now prepared
[b]What do you believe? - Revision 1.4
1) Something? 2) Nothing. 3) Unsure. 4) Nobody else's biz. 5) None of the above. 6) All of the above. 7) Please repeat the question. 8) Seems I forgot. 9) Everything. 10) Those things I can see, touch, taste, smell. 11) Only things I can measure, weigh and test in the lab. 12) Facts with narrow parameters. ...[text shortened]... personality attack. My vote is that we exit on a high note. Yours?
Bobby[/b]
to continue the discussion, and answer our questions in the Sans Dieu Rien thread?
Originally posted by googlefudgeAppreciate your tenacity and am beginning to sense you bear a most ponderous weight. I take no pleasure
Having gone through this exercise, and having answered this question, are you now prepared
to continue the discussion, and answer our questions in the Sans Dieu Rien thread?
in adding to another's burden. Simply, please summarize your three most pressing questions. Thank you.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyeverytime i see you're moniker, i'm reminded of grampy-bone and fall into a state of nostalgia.
[b]What do you believe? - Revision 1.4
1) Something? 2) Nothing. 3) Unsure. 4) Nobody else's biz. 5) None of the above. 6) All of the above. 7) Please repeat the question. 8) Seems I forgot. 9) Everything. 10) Those things I can see, touch, taste, smell. 11) Only things I can measure, weigh and test in the lab. 12) Facts with narrow parameters. ...[text shortened]... personality attack. My vote is that we exit on a high note. Yours?
Bobby[/b]
Originally posted by googlefudgeactually, you are the one using a non-standard definition of knowledge and that is the source of the semantic misunderstanding.
And thus the mess of semantics.
You are using words in non-standard ways that do not match with how I use them.
Which makes conversing on the topic near impossible.
Also, defining knowledge by including knowledge in the description... very rigourus, and not at all circular.
looking up the word in merriam-webster, there is no "belief" in the definition of knowledge. even following up on the other thread of terms to describe knowledge... we get terms of: knowing, apprehend, cognition, association, perception, acknowledgement, and so on. we do not find the term "belief" anywhere near to being associated with "knowledge."
also, maybe this will clear that up what i said: i meant to say "the sum of what is known by humanity" rather than "the sum of human knowledge."
Originally posted by RJHindsI believe the mods should be paying more attention to their responsibilities. From the forum posting guidelines:
With all due respect, you sir, are a liar.
"Discussions in forums can often get heated, but while you may take issue with another poster's viewpoint, you must not resort to personal attacks or abuse. Do not post offensive or inflammatory remarks that stray beyond the bounds of reasoned debate. Calling another poster an "idiot" will leave a post subject to immediate removal."
Originally posted by JS357i cannot be offended and take no issue to whatever rjhinds blathers.
I believe the mods should be paying more attention to their responsibilities. From the forum posting guidelines:
"Discussions in forums can often get heated, but while you may take issue with another poster's viewpoint, you must not resort to personal attacks or abuse. Do not post offensive or inflammatory remarks that stray beyond the bounds of reasoned debate. Calling another poster an "idiot" will leave a post subject to immediate removal."
Originally posted by VoidSpiritNeither do i.
no. i don't have a belief in nothing.
Thats why I say I believe in nothing.
I think I can see the difference, but are you sure its not just a question of semantics.
After all once you say "believe nothing" who cares what other words are surrounding those two in the sentence. Most people will think the same thing.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritUnfortunately, Merriam-Webster is not an authority on the alternative uses of words in different domains of discourse, where they are quite standard: e.g. epistemology. The standard definition of “knowledge” in western philosophy is "justified true belief".
actually, you are the one using a non-standard definition of knowledge and that is the source of the semantic misunderstanding.
looking up the word in merriam-webster, there is no "belief" in the definition of knowledge. even following up on the other thread of terms to describe knowledge... we get terms of: knowing, apprehend, cognition, association, ...[text shortened]... o say "the sum of what is known by humanity" rather than "the sum of human knowledge."
Nor is Merriam-Webster an authority on how writers of koine Greek a couple of millennia ago used their words in another particular domain of discourse.
[I realize that we use the phrase “standard English” to refer to a common usage, exclusive of, say, slang and locally restricted colloquialisms, etc.. But that is pretty much all that it means.]
There is no universal “one size fits all” standard across all domains of discourse. Different areas of knowledge—philosophy, physics, mathematics, economics, medicine— have different standards, even within the same language; and in each there are likely to be words borrowed, not only from common usage, but from other specialties—but given new meanings, or at least new nuances of meaning. Each domain of discourse has different “language games”, as Wittgenstein called them. And the meanings of their terms is not always readily transferable—or reducible to a common standard.
Originally posted by vistesdAgreed. but unless we all carry around with us our own personal dictionary, with our own personal definitions and our own personal use of idioms we have to compromise and use standard words with shared meaning. A dictionary would seem a logical place to start.
Unfortunately, Merriam-Webster is not an authority on the alternative uses of words in different domains of discourse, .
Merriam-Webster is not one of my favourites but it carries more weight than you or I.