Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of 4teatwo

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - 4teatwo

welcome Steve. Indeed the question about the origin of the illusion is a valid point.
Considering that science if founded on the premise that everything is causal and that the ultimate cause and that the consequences of that cause are bound by rules / laws that must also have an ultimate cause.

If one denies causality one has no chance to have a rational interaction with reality and might as well get a tin foil head and believe to be a helicopter.

Community Debates Forum / question of the week april-2 2017 atonement
« on: April 04, 2017, 09:41:43 pm »
supporting the notion of Micah that the interpretation of atonement as penal substitution is logically incoherent unless you are a bright.
First of all it would imply that God would demand a punishment for sin. Considering God to be omnipotent and omniscient. If he would demand punishment for Adam and Eva's sin he would have to punish himself as it was his own creation that went wrong so it was his fault. If you belief in a stupid God be my guest.

It appears that Dr Craig does not understand the problem of the fall, e.g. the fact that God tells Adam and Eve that if they eat from the tree of self realisation the will certainly die as a logic explanation of what will happen when you reject being in the authority of God, e.g. part of the eternal God by becoming an "self" which automatically sets you in conflict with any other self.  He does not say that if you eat from that tree I will kill you but states a logical consequence like we tell our kids that they will die when they touch that high voltage cable.  As such Jesus cannot take on a punishment that we deserve as there is no punishment outstanding, but an offer of love to become one with God again. And Jesus showed us how to do so by submitting to God, even if the path leads to your physical death. No penal substitution but demonstration to us how we can suddenly find ourselves in Jesus and in other peoples hearts when being part of God again.

Just because the person dismissing Anselm is your Doktorvater does not make his thinking infallible nor make it true. Guess it is a bit of fear to object to your superiors opinion, but as Luther said:
"Here I stand and can't do otherwise"
as after all we only need to justify ourselves before God e.g. the logic that resembles the truth of the universe.

I think this thread did a fairly good job of explaining faith.
thanks for the link, had some nice examples and is in agreement with my thinking in it to be trust into the truth of the thing one has faith in and trust is the finite element of investing yourself into that relationship. I take it that faith denouncers struggle with the idea of having to give a bit of themselves into somethin

Faith is what you believe despite the evidence, etc.
sounds like you have faith in your definition :-)

Here's two irrational positions:

1. Believing someone holds an irrational position without actually identifying something about it that is irrational.
2. Believing someone holds an irrational position solely because they have different beliefs than you.
just started a thread on this on the definition of faith. It sounds like the ones that believe faith to be belief without evidence asking others to give them evidence. They do not believe in their own belief / definition which is as bad as it can get.

Found only an old thread here on the subject  but would like some logic clarification.
The definition in Hebrew, that faith is evidence of the unseen, e.g. the faith bearer is evidence for the things that his belief makes him do and that can be tested and checked for coherence. It describes the trust shown in the truth of a belief that allows humans to reach beyond what is known. Thus faith is the expression of trust in the truth of a proposition. The definition of faith to be a belief in the absence of proof is logically incoherent as it would imply the possibility of belief in the presence of proof. Similarly belief in the absence of evidence is logically incoherent. It is a pity that Dr Craig has to my knowledge never addressed this argument properly but belief in the absence of evidence is a logical contradiction as you can only believe in evidence you have as any cognitive process requires evidence. It appears that Atheists entertain the possibility that a belief can be formed without evidence. To a rational thinking person evidence is required to form a belief. You then have to justify to yourself how to act upon this evidence and how the evidence is coherent with things you know already, e.g. things that are proven. So the thing you come to belief to be true has to be unproven to be coherent with causing a believe, e.g. (think and not know) p=true.

Similarly if you confuse evidence with proof, to base a belief on proof appears to be the belief of an idiot as if you require proof to form a belief, you would be unable to acquire knowledge, e.g. you must be so dense that you do not accept the proof as truth verification, thus prove that you "don't get it".

So therefore the term "belief in the absence of evidence" is apparently some mental state specific to people that operate on a logic beyond belief. To admit to have a non-belief e.g. have the absence of a cognitive process when it comes to a proposition is a strange phenomenon. Now if faced with a proposition about anything presented to us in reality leads one to switch of ones brain, where is the point in trying to start a discussion? It sounds like trying to write a word document on a computer that is switched off.

It the time of year where we all watch the naivity play performed to us with a feeling of romantic wonder, you might consider a story with less naivity.

imagine  that about 2000 years ago a young girl was reaped by a roman soldier. Imagine what she went through knowing that she was going to have an abortion as the rules were clear that a child born out of wedlock was not acceptable, let alone from rape by a soldier of the occupying force. Think about her feeling dirty beyond HIV, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea etc as  with a child from a soldier of the occupying force meant she was defiled in a way beyond hope.  the only argument she could justify herself with to her husband was
the word of God:

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God

and her husband was wise enough to declare that he too had been visited by the holy spirit to reveal to him that he was to follow the word of the lord.

This way the word of God turned flesh, to love thy neighbour like thyself.

Its power is far bigger than any magic as it allows us humans to turn an act of hate and oppression into a beacon of love and hope for all to see.  A child free of sin, not born of the wish of it's parents but against their wish, to the glory of Gods love for us.

Now how naive do you have to be to believe in an irrational wizard that miracles babies into wombs compared to a loving God who's plea to love makes you perform miracles yourself through this love? Would a Jesus born out of the love to God not make more sens that a Jesus born out of magic? Would Mary deserve your admiration because she had a magic baby in her her womb or because of the burden she carried under her heart?

That they had to move away from their home to Bethlehem was convenient because they would not have been safe at home as clearly their fellow folks had no problem with accepting that whilst away at her aunt that young woman had a baby magicked into her womb by God (an excuse surely so outrageous that no girl would have used it at the time because those primitive Goat herders could not know not could they know otherwise because they did not know science and genetics).

Enjoy your naivity play this year and perhaps you see Jesus in a different light

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The 'Even-If' Arguments of Abortion
« on: December 15, 2014, 04:39:29 am »
the judith thompson argument missed out on the fact that person B is only sick and connected to her because of her own actions, as without her actions person B would not be sick and connected to her. As she is the cause for  the problem having put person B in that predicament she has to nurse person B until s/he can be safely separated from her.

Similar jabberworks argument is hollow as he does not seem to realize that there is a difference between not creating a human life and creating one and than killing it. you can only destroy an human that exists, not a hypothetical human.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Best Argument for Same-Sex Marriage?
« on: December 08, 2013, 04:03:30 pm »
still waiting for a "best argument".

That we are not all equal is fairly obvious. Those who master their life against all the adversity life throws at them are clearly outstanding and so are those who live their life for the sake of others. So it is that men and women are not equal as women are capable of doing something men can only dream of, sanctify life by protecting and nourishing it inside them and by giving birth to it. As such women have more rights to be protected than men.

It makes sense to celebrate the union of what nature has made different in order to allow creation of the new between them and their commitment towards that, also in order to protect that potential creation. However from that commitment no right arises to have children of your own.
In the past this coincided with the husband taking over the responsibility of looking after the woman from her parents and to support her so sh could look after the household and the kids.  Nowadays we expect the women to look after the household and the kids and earn a salary alongside to make them more equal :-)

To celebrate marriage between two like-minded people for coming together to pleasure each other, to save costs, tax, and to protect each others inheritance, is really a bit of a questionable reason  - but perhaps not in a society of materialistic ideals of today


Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Speech Against Same-Sex "Marriage"
« on: December 06, 2013, 11:15:31 am »
compliment for a very clear and factual argumentation. I would stay away from emotional elements as pathos and humor can make it actually more hurtful for the opponents.

Addressing the issue of homosexuality in the bathroom or changing room is actually one of the problems that heterosexual men can have with homosexuals as the last thing they want to do as a male is to attract the sexual attention of another male.

If it comes to equality, religion usually talks about being equal before God, which is not equal in rights but for themselves but equal in responsibility for each other and the future of the existence of mankind. That equality most people however do not want to think about.

Good luck with it

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Miracle Claim: Choir Non-Quorum
« on: December 03, 2013, 01:13:21 am »
it is a bit worrying if it takes a miracle for someone to believe in God.  A lot of Atheists would consider God saving a life a miracle, because they see him as a serious serial killer killing a lot of innocents by drowning them or starving them to death.

There are plenty of miracles in this world, but they are perfectly natural. The worrying thing is that people believe Jesus to have created material miracles when he did not. Thinking of canaan, the explanation of Jesus having fiddled wih OH groups would make him a failure for his mission to free us from our material self to become immortal again. In fact it would confirm that it is a shame not to have enough wine that you better hide the truth and lie about it. Sounds realy like the teaching some want to see.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Speech Against Same-Sex "Marriage"
« on: December 03, 2013, 12:36:47 am »

As others have said this is a highly emotional issue. Our society has shifted it's views in the last few decades not because of reason or argument. Homosexually and same sex marriage is fashionable. It's fashionable because of relentless indoctrination by the avalanche of sights and sounds(none of which is reasoned argument) coming from popular "culture".

I applaud you for standing your ground on such an issue. At the end of the day Christians believe in an objective morality from God, and that morality considers homosexuality to be sinful. That's why I don't support laws that help perpetuate and promulgate the acting out the behavior. Also, at the end day homosexual rights supporters simply want to force on the rest of society their behavior. They want their behavior justified through the lens of society.
The reaction in Kroatia is interresting as in shows that the lense of society is not broken. In Britain it was not society who legalised gay marriage but polititians, and who claims they are subject to reason and argument. The political system is corrupt as it is based on self selection and only few polititians have the strength to think outside the self-box. They bow to political pressure - and that is diffrent to reason :-(

Marriage was initially the celebration of reuniting what nature had created diffrent for the sake of the new they can create between them.  It followed the existential rule, e.g. to respect nature. Whitst it originally was celebrating creation it now celebrates the created, e.g the self.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Speech Against Same-Sex "Marriage"
« on: December 02, 2013, 08:12:42 am »
Liberals seem to think this is an issue of indiviudal liberty or equal access to marriage. If you prioritize those things, then you should (to be consistent with your pinciples) allow adult incest and polygamy.

The reason I think a conservative can reject the idea of incest being allowed, is because we need a strong taboo against it to protect the family. i.e. protecting the family trumps individual liberty concerns.
sorry but that argument is invalid as in the eyes of the equality lobby the unborn are not equal, so the consideration of having children is immaterial about marriage. After all it's a tax affair.

By the way, same sex couples are unable to consummate marriage anyhow, thus the offsprings are irrelvant to their definition of marriage. Perhaps it is a problem of the language that they may consume their marriage as after all it is not anymore about recombining things made diffrent by nature as things are not diffrent any more but equal. After all inequality is injustice.  Where would we come if we would accept things to be not equal in the eye of humans. Odd thing that I thought when my kids were born that there were some anatomical diffrences. Should I see a doctor about that  and have that changed so they conform to the equality norm?  :-)

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Logical PoE/S
« on: December 02, 2013, 06:53:16 am »

In the end, it is a vey complicated matter, even for the best minds and the best hearts.

One can only have faith sometimes, though, at least for now,  we also have reasons.

you should always have faith in the logos, e.g. that the reason will win

Thanks for replying. Took a long time to find that thread again.

My point was that we could not argue about someone to possess a distinguishing property if said property cannot be distinguished from the absence of this property. It is a logical fallacy. The only reason that people can worry about good and evil is that they eaten so many apples that they now got a hyper inflated ego.

Logically if you create something you automatically create the separation between its existence and its non-existence. So with the creation of a chair you also define the non-chairs. It's a caveat of creation. The only way to avoid that is to not create.

Now all those a-creationists, e.g. those who claim that the existence of negative proofs that God cannot be positive because negative exists must therefore have the ability to imagine creating distinguishable properties that cannot be distinguished from the absence of said property. Is atheism a special branch of logic or is it just that, because they deny the existence of an all knowing entity, that they think they know better?

Better read a bit about Platinga and his arguments and the challenges. Any pointers were best to go??

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Speech Against Same-Sex "Marriage"
« on: December 02, 2013, 01:30:19 am »

Or II:

P1.) If one accepts the proposal that marriage, as the supporter of same-sex marriage alleges, is merely the recognizing of individuals who are "lovingly committed to one another," then logic demands that you accept a "marriage" between 9 men and 9 women who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between 1 man and 18 women who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between a man and his sister who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or a "marriage" between a woman and his grandson and his cousin who are "lovingly committed" to one another, or indeed any conceivable configuration of individuals who are "lovingly committed" to one another.

P2.) Supporters of same-sex "marriage" are opposed to these other configurations of marriage.

C: Therefore, their position is incoherent.

The generalisation is incoherent and the generalisation of "supporters" is unvalidated and unlikely. Considering the level of promiscuity amongst MSM, their understanding of commitment might be diffrent to yours anyhow, but in P1 you adress the individual supporter whilst in P2 you generalise.

Pages : [1] 2 3 ... 5