 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / May 2006God's logic vs. common sense
The Biblical story of interest now is the one of King David. Here was someone who was chosen to be the leader of Israel. His family did not think of including him in the lineup when the priests came. Why didn't they do that? Because they were thinking with their earth mind. They were thinking with common sense. They were thinking linearly, hiearchially, simplistically. And if there is one thing we see through the Bible again and again, is that God rejoices in upsetting man's hierarchies and man's kingdoms and man's logic and man's common sense, and all the orthodoxies created in furtherance of these things, in order that man be reminded of a higher logic of God. Let me ask you this. Is there anything linear or commonsensical about the neurons in the body? How about the crown of a sequoia or the Horsehead Nebula? We read in the Bible again and again that God has created heaven and earth and all things are His. And to see things hierarchially or commonsensically, is not to see them God's way. If you look at the plant kingdom, you will not see a hierarchy; you will not see a militaristic counting order; you will see multiplicity of forms, each perfect in itself and each magnificent for what it is worth. So then to go around applying a single standard to everyone and try to make everyone the same person and bludgeon all human beings into being the similar individual with similar modes of thought, when we can see all over the universe that that is not the way of the Lord, is against all the things that we see prescribed in the Bible and expressed in the cosmos. I listened to a sermon. The man was homeless, going through his trials. A kid hit him and his mother encouraged him. The man stands up. The spirit of God was in him. He raises his hand and points his finger at the kid. Now when a homeless person stands up and points the finger at you like that, and has absolutely no fear of you, you know you're in trouble. These people probably thought the man was a bum. They probably even thought they were being good citizens and good Christians. They weren't stealing, they weren't killing, they weren't committing adultery. But they failed to honor the main commandment. And if God hates anything more than anything else, it's uncharitability and bullying and hierarchial thinking that has no place for Him. Now this man is a priest and is in charge of a large congregation as well as a drug addiction recovery center. God saw him through his trials. He says he asks God that the kid and his mother not be injured, but that's up to God. Here is another example of someone who was completely down and out, and whom God rejoiced in elevating to a place where he is not only a priest but is performing miracles every day in the lives of many people through his words and his deeds. Like the story of David, here is another example of the marvelous quality of God's logic and its superiority to linear thinking, hierarchial thinking and common sense. Ilya Shambat. > Like the story of David, here is another example of the marvelous > quality of God's logic and its superiority to linear thinking, > hierarchial thinking and common sense. > > Ilya Shambat. You are barking mad, do you know that? Bob Kolker > > Like the story of David, here is another example of the marvelous > > quality of God's logic and its superiority to linear thinking, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You are barking mad, do you know that? That was spoken with the inferior mode of cognition. > The Biblical story of interest now is the one of King David. Here was > someone who was chosen to be the leader of Israel. His family did not [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > quality of God's logic and its superiority to linear thinking, > hierarchial thinking and common sense. So you're saying the Design is not Intelligent? > Ilya Shambat. > So you're saying the Design is not Intelligent? I am saying that its intelligence is superior to hierarchial thinking. > > So you're saying the Design is not Intelligent? > > I am saying that its intelligence is superior to hierarchial thinking. Sufficiently superior intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity. > > > So you're saying the Design is not Intelligent? > > > > I am saying that its intelligence is superior to hierarchial thinking. > > Sufficiently superior intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity. When viewed from reference of lower-order thinking. > > > > So you're saying the Design is not Intelligent? > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > When viewed from reference of lower-order thinking. And what are you then, one of God's peers? Were you present when the foundations of the earth were laid? How do you KNOW that the Design is due to superior intelligence and not stupidity? > > > > > So you're saying the Design is not Intelligent? > > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > How do you KNOW that the Design is due to superior intelligence > and not stupidity? Are you then one of God's peers? How do you KNOW that your inability to understand the intelligence of design is due to intelligence and not stupidity? > > > > > > So you're saying the Design is not Intelligent? > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Are you then one of God's peers? Why does it matter? > How do you KNOW that your inability to understand the intelligence of > design is due to intelligence and not stupidity? I didn't say I knew. All I'm saying is that it doesn't follow from failure to understand that higher intelligence is involved. Go to a mental institution and see if you can understand the inmates. Are you stupider than them? Human learned of God's logic through the bible written 2000 years ago. Common sense tells us that something written 2000 years ago can only explain things before but not after the time it was written, unless there are new evidence to show that it is still valid. Is there any new evidence telling us that the bible is still valid 2000 years later? Just curious. > Human learned of God's logic through the bible written 2000 years ago. > Common sense tells us that something written 2000 years ago can only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Just curious. Ding! The validity of your question has expired.  Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... A question has no validity, only legitimacy. My question regarding the validity of Bible due to time frame issue is legitimate. Jullan wrote: > The validity of your question has expired. > A question has no validity, only legitimacy. My question regarding > the validity of Bible due to time frame issue is legitimate. Which validity? valid • adjective 1 (of a reason, argument, etc.) well based or logical. 2 legally binding or acceptable. Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... neither. www.dictionary.com lists 5 definitions. Which one is closest to the "validity" you used for my question? I'd say number 4. My turn to ask you why my question is not valid? val·id Audio pronunciation of "valid" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vld) adj. 1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection. 2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods. 3. Having legal force; effective or binding: a valid title. 4. Logic. 1. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument. 2. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion. 5. Archaic. Of sound health; robust. > Which validity? > valid · adjective 1 (of a reason, argument, etc.) well based or logical. > 2 legally binding or acceptable. > neither. www.dictionary.com lists 5 definitions. I prefer the OED when it comes to English. >Which one is > closest to the "validity" you used for my question? I'd say number 4. > > My turn to ask you why my question is not valid? I am not saying your question is not valid (anymore, it mysteriously resurrected) but I'm not sure sure it was well framed... Was the bible *ever* valid(4)? > val·id Audio pronunciation of "valid" ( P ) Pronunciation Key > (vld) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> valid · adjective 1 (of a reason, argument, etc.) well based or logical. >> 2 legally binding or acceptable. Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... That is a separate question. I assume that the answer to THE OTHER question is true. If the other question is false, my question does not need to be asked at all. It can be framed like this: "If the Bible was valid 2000 years ago, is there any new evidence telling us that it is still valid 2000 years later?" and "If the Bible was not valid 2000 years ago, I have no further question." I reduce these two cases into one for simplicity. > I am not saying your question is not valid (anymore, it > mysteriously resurrected) but I'm not sure sure it was well > framed... Was the bible *ever* valid(4)? > A question has no validity, only legitimacy. My question regarding > the validity of Bible due to time frame issue is legitimate. > > Jullan wrote: > > The validity of your question has expired. Indeed. It was merely apparent validity. Hubris filled the interstices. > Human learned of God's logic through the bible written 2000 years ago. > Common sense tells us that something written 2000 years ago can only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Just curious. The Bible didn't even get rights thing that happened before it was written. We can divide the knowledge in the Bible into two categories: (1) The historical facts may or may not be completely accurate. But it is extremely difficult to validate or invalidate them either way. So believe them or not is a personal choice. (2) The assertion that God not only created the universe but also continues to rule the world. Even if the historical fact that God created the universe is true according to the Bible written 2000 years ago, there is no new evidence that God continues to rule the world 2000 years later. Using the Bible as proof is troublesome since it was written 2000 years ago thus cannot describe facts 2000 years later. What if things have changed? > The Bible didn't even get rights thing that happened before it was written. > We can divide the knowledge in the Bible into two categories: (1) > The historical facts may or may not be completely accurate. But it is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What if things have changed? The question is not conducive to edification. Don't worry about it. Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... I have the slightest idea what you meant. Do not trivialize my question. > The question is not conducive to edification. > Don't worry about it. > I have the slightest idea what you meant. I presume you meant "haven't." Are you interested? >Do not trivialize my > question. LOL >> The question is not conducive to edification. >> Don't worry about it. Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... not at all. > I presume you meant "haven't." > Are you interested? > not at all. There seems to be a direct relationship between top-posting and cretinism. >> I presume you meant "haven't." >> Are you interested? Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... Sorry, not interested in trivial conversation. > There seems to be a direct relationship between top-posting and > cretinism. > Sorry, not interested in trivial conversation. Involuntary huh? Nevermind... Consider youself forgiven. >> There seems to be a direct relationship between top-posting and >> cretinism. Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... ....... > Involuntary huh? > Nevermind... Consider youself forgiven. > ....... Your most meaningful post.... well done. I hereby grant you the last word. >> Involuntary huh? >> Nevermind... Consider youself forgiven. Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... darncat7@yahoo.com wrote in news:1148604902.049006.26520 @i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > Sorry, not interested in trivial conversation. >> There seems to be a direct relationship between top-posting and >> cretinism. very nice. Pt > We can divide the knowledge in the Bible into two categories: (1) > The historical facts may or may not be completely accurate. But it is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as proof is troublesome since it was written 2000 years ago thus cannot > describe facts 2000 years later. Euclid wrote his geometrical treatise over 2300 years ago and it is (for the most part) just as good today as it was then. David Hilbert had to clean it up a bit, but Euclid got it mostly right. Archimedes' treatises on static balance, levers and hydrostatics are just as right today as when he wrote them 2300 years ago (about the same time as Euclid). Bob Kolker >> We can divide the knowledge in the Bible into two categories: (1) >> The historical facts may or may not be completely accurate. But it is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Bob Kolker Good point. Do you know how God rules the world? Does He do so mainly using logic, causality and scientific laws, or mainly through miracles? Signature~Stumper Whenever we have doubts about physical and mathematical laws, we can conduct experiments to verify them. But when we have doubts about God's logic/law, we can only rely on the Bible, which is written 2000 years ago, and thus presents a vacuum for the last 2000 years. > Archimedes' treatises on static balance, levers and hydrostatics are > just as right today as when he wrote them 2300 years ago (about the same > time as Euclid). Whenever we have doubts about physical and mathematical laws, we can conduct experiments to verify them. But when we have doubts about God's logics/laws, we can only rely on a Bible that was written 2000 years ago. Even if everything in the Bible was true 2000 years ago, it needs to be validated again from time to time, just like any other laws in the universe. Before God created the universe, there was no universe. Thus things did get changed, and the laws/logics must be updated accordingly. We cannot rely on a Bible written in the past to tell us about the universe today. > Archimedes' treatises on static balance, levers and hydrostatics are > just as right today as when he wrote them 2300 years ago (about the same > time as Euclid). > Whenever we have doubts about physical and mathematical laws, we can > conduct experiments to verify them. But when we have doubts about God's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Before God created the universe, there was no universe. That's enough... your last word *PLONK* - http://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... Why don't you stand aside and let others express their opinions? I am really not interested in what you have to say. It's not like you have any idea what we are talking about here. > That's enough... your last word *PLONK* > Human learned of God's logic through the bible written 2000 years ago. > Common sense tells us that something written 2000 years ago can only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Just curious. huh? Man is confronted with what i suppose you mean by "God's logic" at every single instant of his existence. Every time you interact with creation, with your fellow human beings or introspect, you have an opportunity to learn about God's intentions. You can get further by attending mass, praying and seeking spiritual guidance from a good priest and yes, also by studying the scriptures. Now tell us something, what the heck does this all have to do with sci.math?!?!?!?! >> Human learned of God's logic through the bible written 2000 years ago. >> Common sense tells us that something written 2000 years ago can only [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Now tell us something, what the heck does this all have to do with > sci.math?!?!?!?! Or talk.religion.buddhism... "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34: Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... > >> Human learned of God's logic through the bible written 2000 years ago. > >> Common sense tells us that something written 2000 years ago can only [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; > for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34: and as christ passed out the fishes and loaves he told them that "this too shall pass." > and as christ passed out the fishes > and loaves he told them that "this > too shall pass." Within twelve hours. Bob Kolker > > and as christ passed out the fishes > > and loaves he told them that "this > > too shall pass." > > Within twelve hours. since christ allegedly materialized these extra fishes and loaves out of thin air, it is rumoured that all they passed was gas... "i'm close to heaven crushed at the gates, they sharpen their knives on my mistakes." >tom waits >>>and as christ passed out the fishes >>>and loaves he told them that "this [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > extra fishes and loaves out of thin air, it > is rumoured that all they passed was gas... What ever happpened to "Holy sh.t!" Bob Kolker > >>>and as christ passed out the fishes > >>>and loaves he told them that "this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What ever happpened to "Holy sh.t!" that's when the pope has a rendevous with bears in the woods. Why don't you ask the original poster? I just replied to his message and the netnews software attached those netgroups that he originally included. > Now tell us something, what the heck does this all have to do with > sci.math?!?!?!?! > Why don't you ask the original poster? I just replied to his message > and the netnews software attached those netgroups that he originally > included. > > > Now tell us something, what the heck does this all have to do with > > sci.math?!?!?!?! Because I was answering your article and the crossposting issue was secondary. Dont top post. >> Why don't you ask the original poster? I just replied to his message >> and the netnews software attached those netgroups that he originally [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > secondary. > Dont top post. The web based newsgroups applications, Netnews and the like, seem to attract a particularly imbecilic species of poster, on the whole, and they seem impervious to reason. Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... > > Why don't you ask the original poster? I just replied to his message > > and the netnews software attached those netgroups that he originally [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Because I was answering your article and the crossposting issue was > secondary. How in the world can I tell which newsgroup you are posting from/to? There are "sci.astro,sci.econ,sci.math,soc.singles,talk.religion.buddhism" in the list. > Dont top post. Some people prefer top-posting, some bottom-posting. And who is to judge which one is better? I personally hate reading two millions lines of previous message before getting one line of reply. > > > Why don't you ask the original poster? I just replied to his message > > > and the netnews software attached those netgroups that he originally [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "sci.astro,sci.econ,sci.math,soc.singles,talk.religion.buddhism" in the > list. Again, the crossposting issue was secondary in relevance. For some reason you do not seem interested in addressing my answer to your article. > > Dont top post. > > Some people prefer top-posting, some bottom-posting. And who is to > judge which one is better? I personally hate reading two millions lines > of previous message before getting one line of reply. There is a concensus that it makes a lot more sense to place replies to items in an article within their quoted context, than on top, where it is impossible to elucidate what part of the article is being refered to. That some prefer top posting does not make it any better, nor does it speak too well of them. The belief that both methods are equally valid is a delusion. regards. >>>> Why don't you ask the original poster? I just replied to his message >>>> and the netnews software attached those netgroups that he originally [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > regards. Yes, his "I personally hate reading two millions lines of previous message before getting one line of reply." is typical of the self-obsessed and ludicrous behaviour of the "I voz just following orders" strain of the God-squad. He hates reading 2 million lines but is perfectly happy that others are forced too if they wish to find out what his inane contributions relate too. ps. His implication that the human-condition has changed in the last 2000 years is particularly comical and inappropriate on, for instance, a Buddhist newsgroup. Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... > There is a concensus that it makes a lot more > sense to place replies to items in an article within [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not make it any better, nor does it speak too well of > them. The belief that both methods are equally > valid is a delusion. People often left many layers of reply in the message, thus we have to read hundred lines of prior discussion just to get one line of reply. Many people, including me, are sick and tired of this practice, and just want to see the current reply in front, then just have the prior exchanged attached in the bottom. People have different point of views. > People often left many layers of reply in the message, damn people anyway. down with people ! nuke 'em all ! > thus we have > to read hundred lines of prior discussion just to get one line of > reply. we just 'have' to, dammit. > Many people, including me, are sick and tired of this practice, practice makes perfect. so make your sick and tiredness perfect, n'kay? > and just want to see the current reply in front, then just have the > prior exchanged attached in the bottom. nobody's attaching anything to my bottom doncha know. > People have different point of views. many need new glasses. >> thus we have >> to read hundred lines of prior discussion just to get one line of >> reply. > we just 'have' to, dammit. Why? Because "I said so?" How many "because I said so" people are on the internet? > >> thus we have > >> to read hundred lines of prior discussion just to get one line of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why? Because "I said so?" How many "because I said so" people are on > the internet? hold on, i'll go take a count > huh? Man is confronted with what i suppose you mean by "God's logic" at > every single instant of his existence. Every time you interact with > creation, with your fellow human beings or introspect, you have an > opportunity to learn about God's intentions. You can get further by > attending mass, praying and seeking spiritual guidance from a good > priest and yes, also by studying the scriptures. Back to your original reply. We first learned the concept of God from the Bible, which was written 2000 years ago. My question is that if God ceased to exist or changed its form of existence during the 2000 years since the Bible was written due to some unknown reasons, how do we ever find out about it? We can't learn these new information from the Bible since it was written 2000 years ago and thus won't know any changes since then. > > huh? Man is confronted with what i suppose you mean by "God's logic" at > > every single instant of his existence. Every time you interact with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Back to your original reply. We first learned the concept of God > from the Bible, which was written 2000 years ago. -Even if you go only by biblical cosmogony we have known of God for over 5000 years. If you believe in the sciences, Man has carried around the concept of God for several 10,000 of years. -The Bible was not written 2000 years ago. > My question is that > if God ceased to exist or changed its form of existence during the 2000 > years since the Bible was written due to some unknown reasons, how do > we ever find out about it? If God created the cosmos then it would certainly pass away if God ceased to exist. If you wish an elaborate and qualified answer, ask a theologician, not usenet. > We can't learn these new information from the Bible since it was > written 2000 years ago and thus won't know any changes since then. You seem to believe that the Bible is the only source of divine revelation. That is a wrong notion. Creation itself is a source of revelation if you care to pay attention. Your premises are wrong and your question does not make much sense in that circumstances. What is the meaning of your questions? regards. >>> huh? Man is confronted with what i suppose you mean by "God's logic" at >>> every single instant of his existence. Every time you interact with [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > your question does not make much sense in that circumstances. What is > the meaning of your questions? The meaning of his questions is... "Been dazed and confused for so long its not true..." Checking the groups list it appears that soc.singles is the only appropriate group for the entire thread. Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... > >>> huh? Man is confronted with what i suppose you mean by "God's logic" at > >>> every single instant of his existence. Every time you interact with [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > The meaning of his questions is... > "Been dazed and confused for so long its not true..." That would appear to be the case. > Checking the groups list it appears that soc.singles is the only > appropriate group for the entire thread. and the song goes on to say "Lots of people talk and few of them know," > http://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ > > ..................................................................................... > > *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com *** >>>>> huh? Man is confronted with what i suppose you mean by "God's logic" at >>>>> every single instant of his existence. Every time you interact with [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > and the song goes on to say > "Lots of people talk and few of them know," Step 1. Set volume to 11 Step 2. click on http://www.dennyweb.com/viking_kittens.htm Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... <snip> > >>> the meaning of your questions? > >> The meaning of his questions is... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Step 1. Set volume to 11 > Step 2. click on http://www.dennyweb.com/viking_kittens.htm LOL. Regards. > -Even if you go only by biblical cosmogony we have known of > God for over 5000 years. If you believe in the sciences, Man > has carried around the concept of God for several 10,000 of > years. The Bible was not written 2000 years ago. The original thread was clearly talking about the Christian God, now you start to talk about "ANY" God. This is a logical fallacy. We must use the same term, otherwise label each term with an index -- God1, God2, etc. Else we are just talking in mud. The difinition of these Gods are conflicting, therefore you cannot merge them into one for convenience. > If God created the cosmos then it would certainly pass away > if God ceased to exist. If you wish an elaborate and qualified > answer, ask a theologician, not usenet. Bad logic again. If the creator of computer dies, the computer does not die. Creator creates something, the life of the creation does not necessarily terminates with the life of the creator. > You seem to believe that the Bible is the only source of divine > revelation. That is a wrong notion. Creation itself is a source [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your question does not make much sense in that > circumstances. What is the meaning of your questions? This is yet another logical fallacy of "leap of faith." If you explain everything with "because I said so," you can explain everything your own way, but it is very subjective. The kind of revelation you talked about is very subjective, it cannot be the base of any discussion trying to find objectivity in things. Our discussion can be fruitful if you can start to write paragraph without major logical fallacy in it. Thanks! > Bad logic again. If the creator of computer dies, the computer does > not die. Creator creates something, the life of the creation does not > necessarily terminates with the life of the creator. so when the sun burns out we'll still be here wandering around in the dark in subzero temperatures? > so when the sun burns out we'll still be here wandering around in the dark > in subzero temperatures? When the sun burns out maybe human beings have already migrated to other galaxies. Why don't you evaluate all the possibilities? > > so when the sun burns out we'll still be here wandering around in the dark > > in subzero temperatures? > > When the sun burns out maybe human beings have already migrated to > other galaxies. Why don't you evaluate all the possibilities? damn fine weasling. >> so when the sun burns out we'll still be here wandering around in the dark >> in subzero temperatures? > > When the sun burns out maybe human beings have already migrated to >other galaxies. Why don't you evaluate all the possibilities? Other galaxies ???? Don't you think the 10 billion or so stars in our own galaxy will be enough for us for quite some time, even when the Sun "burns out"? Btw the Sun is expected to "burn out" in some 5 billion years. Think back only 0.5 billion years for a moment -- life has evolved quite a bit since then, right? Why should evolution stop now? Of course it won't -- evolution will continue. In 5 billion years there won't be any humans - either we'll be extinct, or else we've evolved into something else. Signature---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/ > > Bad logic again. If the creator of computer dies, the computer does > > not die. Creator creates something, the life of the creation does not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be here wandering around in the dark > in subzero temperatures? I think there is a difference between creating and inventing... but what is it???? > > > Bad logic again. If the creator of computer dies, the computer does > > > not die. Creator creates something, the life of the creation does not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think there is a difference between creating and inventing... but > what is it???? 'invent' is at the idea stage. 'create' is at the stage of bringing ideas into being. > > -Even if you go only by biblical cosmogony we have known of > > God for over 5000 years. If you believe in the sciences, Man [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Gods are conflicting, therefore you cannot merge them into one for > convenience. -Even if you go only by biblical cosmogony we have known of God for over 5000 years. -The Bible was not written 2000 years ago. > > If God created the cosmos then it would certainly pass away > > if God ceased to exist. If you wish an elaborate and qualified > answer, ask a theologician, not usenet. > > Bad logic again. If the creator of computer dies, the computer does > not die. Creator creates something, the life of the creation does not > necessarily terminates with the life of the creator. I concede the point because im just stating opinion, being no authority. As I said before, ask a theologician for an appropiate qualified answer. > > You seem to believe that the Bible is the only source of divine > > revelation. That is a wrong notion. Creation itself is a source [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > talked about is very subjective, it cannot be the base of any > discussion trying to find objectivity in things. There is no fallacy here. The fact that God reveals himself through his creation is widely accepted. You might want to read on the concept of "Natural Revelation". The problem here is not the subjectivity of my arguments but your ignorance of the subject. Perhaps you would care to explain what you mean with your question. What is the purpose of asking it. What are you trying to achieve. Regards. > Our discussion can be fruitful if you can start to write paragraph > without major logical fallacy in it. Thanks! > -Even if you go only by biblical cosmogony we have known of God for > over 5000 years. The Bible was not written 2000 years ago. This word "God" became very vague in this statement. Every religion has its own idea of God, including "Sun God", etc. When we start to use ambiguous terms in our discussion, we are starting to circle around and getting nowhere. This is why we must be precise or specific in the terms we use. > I concede the point because im just stating opinion, being no > authority. As I said before, ask a theologician for an appropiate > qualified answer. Why should I ask them if I question the validity of their foundation (Bible, revelation, whatever)? Are you trying to commit a logical fallacy of "resort to authority" here? > There is no fallacy here. The fact that God reveals himself through his > creation is widely accepted. You might want to read on the concept of > "Natural Revelation". The problem here is not the subjectivity of my > arguments but your ignorance of the subject. Perhaps you would care to > explain what you mean with your question. What is the purpose of asking > it. What are you trying to achieve. Widely accepted by people who have problem thinking things through carefully. I am asking why they accept a concept without thinking it through carefully. You are basically asking me to accept the concept because others do. You mention a concept of "God reveals himself through his creation," I question this concept. Now you want me to take it for granted, then I will have to remind you the danger of logical fallacy "resort to authority." We can't accept a concept just because it is said by people we believe to be the authority (professor, theologician, etc). If you want to engage in a discussion, you must be able to present your own arguments. > > -Even if you go only by biblical cosmogony we have known of God for > > over 5000 years. The Bible was not written 2000 years ago. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > getting nowhere. This is why we must be precise or specific in the > terms we use. Are you being foolishly argumentative on purpose? You requested that we constrain the discussion to the domain of the Judeo Christian God and I complied. There is no vagueness in my statement, no ambiguity in my use of the word God. Again the issue arises from your ignorance of the whole matter. According to the calculations based on the scriptures, Creation occurred at about 4000 BC. So your notion that we became aware of God 2000 years ago through the bible is wrong by any standards you may wish to apply. And again: The Bible was not written 2000 years ago. > > I concede the point because im just stating opinion, being no > > authority. As I said before, ask a theologician for an appropiate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > foundation (Bible, revelation, whatever)? Are you trying to commit a > logical fallacy of "resort to authority" here? I am attempting nothing of the sort. I said a) I concede the point, b) I am no authority in these matters at all. I simply suggested you ask someone who should know. The notion that someone might be better qualified and prepared than yourself seems to offend you. Why is that? > > There is no fallacy here. The fact that God reveals himself through his > > creation is widely accepted. You might want to read on the concept of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > carefully. I am asking why they accept a concept without thinking it > through carefully. So you think theologicians who dedicated and dedicate the whole of their lives to studying precisely these kind of questions do not "think them through carefully" ? What do you think they do? Doesn't it strike you as very arrogant to judge others based solely on your vast ignorance? > You are basically asking me to accept the concept > because others do. You mention a concept of "God reveals himself > through his creation," I question this concept. I am not asking you to accept anything. You have presented no argument at all against this concept appart from mentioning that you "question" it. I am telling you of a concept that is generally held to be true. I am telling you of a concept that you did not question before because you ignored it. I am telling you of this concept in order to show to you that your idea that God was revealed to us only by the scriptures is wrong. As is your idea that the Bible was written 2000 years ago. As is your idea that Man has only known of God for 2000 years. Since your original premises were wrong, and you are now questioning a concept that you were not aware of before, I ask you for the third time: ¿What is the purpose of your question? ¿What is your thesis? ¿What are you trying to establish? Please answer these questions. > Now you want me to take > it for granted, then I will have to remind you the danger of logical > fallacy "resort to authority." We can't accept a concept just because > it is said by people we believe to be the authority (professor, > theologician, etc). Of course we can and we do all the time. We constantly rely on the authority of others. It is only when we need to experience knowledge or have compelling reasons to doubt facts established by others, that we need to acquire the knowledge ourselves. Only an Idiot would question the authority of his doctors instead of taking the medicine that will cure his fatal illness. If you wish to have a civilized conversation, you have to accept the consense, or else you have to present convincing arguments against it. To say that it aint so because you say so is ridiculous and makes you look like a fool. Regards. > Are you being foolishly argumentative on purpose? You requested that we > constrain the discussion to the domain of the Judeo Christian God and I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > standards you may wish to apply. And again: > The Bible was not written 2000 years ago. According to wikipedia.org, the concept of Christian God is based on the Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the Old Testament. "According to historians, the Old Testament was composed between the 5th century BC and the 2nd century BC." Thus the Old Testament part of the Christian Bible was written roughly 2200-2500 years ago, not 5000 as you claimed. You confused the date of Creation claimed by the Bible and the actual date that the Bible was written/composed. The Old Testament was composed 2200-2500 years ago, the New Testament was composed later. > I am attempting nothing of the sort. I said a) I concede the point, b) > I am no authority in these matters at all. I simply suggested you ask > someone who should know. The notion that someone might be better > qualified and prepared than yourself seems to offend you. Why is that? I am simply confused by that fact that your whole argument seems to be based on a logical fallacy "resort to authority," that's all. > So you think theologicians who dedicated and dedicate the whole of > their lives to studying precisely these kind of questions do not "think > them through carefully" ? What do you think they do? Doesn't it strike > you as very arrogant to judge others based solely on your vast > ignorance? And there were theorists who dedicated whole their lives and claimed that the earth is flat. Should we trust them as well? I think we shouldn't. > I am not asking you to accept anything. You have presented no argument > at all against this concept appart from mentioning that you "question" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > time: What is the purpose of your question? What is your thesis? > What are you trying to establish? Please answer these questions. I am questioning the validity of your claim that "every time you interact with creation, with your fellow human beings or introspect, you have an opportunity to learn about God's intentions." Firts of all, the concept of God is based on the Bible, but Bible was written thousand years ago and it cannot possibly know in advance what is God's intention thousand years later. Secondly, if you throw the Bible aside and claim that you can tell God's intentions just by "interacting with creation," I am saying you have a mental problem, or delusion if you like. > Of course we can and we do all the time. We constantly rely on the > authority of others. It is only when we need to experience knowledge > or have compelling reasons to doubt facts established by others, that > we need to acquire the knowledge ourselves. Only an Idiot would > question the authority of his doctors instead of taking the medicine > that will cure his fatal illness. We question knowledge when we have doubts, especially to empty claims such as "every time you interact with creation, with your fellow human beings or introspect, you have an opportunity to learn about God's intentions." This kind of statement does not make any sense. > If you wish to have a civilized conversation, you have to accept the > consense, or else you have to present convincing arguments against it. > To say that it aint so because you say so is ridiculous and makes you > look like a fool. There is no law to force me to accept the nonsense (your so called consense) such as "every time you interact with creation, with your fellow human beings or introspect, you have an opportunity to learn about God's intentions." > > Are you being foolishly argumentative on purpose? You requested that we > > constrain the discussion to the domain of the Judeo Christian God and I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Christian Bible was written roughly 2200-2500 years ago, not 5000 as > you claimed. So, are you saying that wikipedia is an authority on this matters, and that it is also an authority you are willing to submit to? I actually went and looked at the Bible article on Wikipedia but found nothing of the sort. Perhaps you would care to give a reference to that article? The books of Moses where written at about 1450 BC, that is quite a bit earlier than your 2000 years ago. > You confused the date of Creation claimed by the Bible and the > actual date that the Bible was written/composed. The Old Testament was > composed 2200-2500 years ago, the New Testament was composed later. I never claimed that the Bible was written 5000 years ago. What I said is that Man, according to the Biblical story has had knowledge of God for over 5000 years. Perhaps you are confused by your own belief that the Bible came first and only afterwards came Man's knowledge of God? Perhaps your wrong belief that the Bible is only 2000 years old is adding to that confusion? Perhaps you should not wildly interpret what I write but just pay a bit more of attention? > > I am attempting nothing of the sort. I said a) I concede the point, b) > > I am no authority in these matters at all. I simply suggested you ask [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I am simply confused by that fact that your whole argument seems to > be based on a logical fallacy "resort to authority," that's all. No, that is not one of my arguments. I only sugested to you that you ask someone authoritative if you wish to get good qualified answers. My arguments are that your premises are wrong, and that you suffer, at least apparently, from appalling ignorance concerning these matters. > > So you think theologicians who dedicated and dedicate the whole of > > their lives to studying precisely these kind of questions do not "think [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that the earth is flat. Should we trust them as well? I think we > shouldn't. Can you name a single theorist who dedicated his whole life to claiming thath the earth is flat? Can you name at least one who on top of that is considered to be an authority? > > I am not asking you to accept anything. You have presented no argument > > at all against this concept appart from mentioning that you "question" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > interact with creation, with your fellow human beings or introspect, > you have an opportunity to learn about God's intentions." Well, you were not questioning this originally since It was me who responded to your article, and not the other way around. So, are you going to answer my three questions or not? Because to be frank, this exchange is becoming pretty boring without a clear statement of what your thesis is. > Firts of all, > the concept of God is based on the Bible, Wrong. God had revealed himself to Man before the Bible was written, ie. Abraham. > but Bible was written > thousand years ago and it cannot possibly know in advance what is God's > intention thousand years later. Unless of course, God's intention have never changed. Have you got any evidence or reason to believe that God's intentions changed in the last 2000 years? Do you have any compelling arguments to support this speculation? > Secondly, if you throw the Bible aside > and claim that you can tell God's intentions just by "interacting with > creation," I am saying you have a mental problem, or delusion if you > like. I never claimed I could tell God's intentions. I only told you that you can learn of them in several ways and that there is a consensus that God reveals himself through his Creation. If you want to call me crazy because of that, go ahead it says a lot more about yourself than it does about me. By the way, you are incurring in a fallacy (something you seem to abhor). Do you know the its name? It is called "ad hominem" > > Of course we can and we do all the time. We constantly rely on the > > authority of others. It is only when we need to experience knowledge [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > human beings or introspect, you have an opportunity to learn about > God's intentions." This kind of statement does not make any sense. I hope you will kindly proceed, after answering the 3 questions I asked you, to give interesting arguments as to why this kind of statement does not make any sense. It would be a pity if it turned out that this conversation has been nothing but an exchange with an argumentative fool. Regards. > > If you wish to have a civilized conversation, you have to accept the > > consense, or else you have to present convincing arguments against it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fellow human beings or introspect, you have an opportunity to learn > about God's intentions." I do not know your age, but if you st > I never claimed that the Bible was written 5000 years ago. What I said > is that Man, according to the Biblical story has had knowledge of God > for over 5000 years." There is no consistent definition of God before the Bible was composed. Thus even though there may be framgmented and vague idea of God among a few people, most people knew the concept of God after the Old Testament part of the Bible was composed. It is important to make this distinction since a blurred and ambiguous concept of God is not what we are talking about. Unless we go back to the vague discussion again. But this is a trivial point comparing to what other subjects we were discussing. > My arguments are that your premises are wrong Which one of my premises are wrong? > Can you name a single theorist who dedicated his whole life to claiming > thath the earth is flat? Can you name at least one who on top of that is > considered to be an authority? Do a search on google you lazy. You didn't provide any source regarding natural revelation as well. > Well, you were not questioning this originally since It was me who > responded to your article, and not the other way around. So, are you > going to answer my three questions or not? Because to be frank, this > exchange is becoming pretty boring without a clear statement of what > your thesis is. What three questions? >> First of all, >> the concept of God is based on the Bible, > Wrong. God had revealed himself to Man before the Bible was written, > ie. Abraham. People learned of Abraham (and the claim that God revealed to him) through the Bible. If there was no Bible, how did people learn the story of Abraham? >> but Bible was written thousand years ago and it cannot possibly know in >> advance what is God's intention thousand years later. > Unless of course, God's intention have never changed. Have you got any > evidence or reason to believe that God's intentions changed in the last > 2000 years? Do you have any compelling arguments to support this > speculation? I am opened minded enough to acnowledge that it may change or it may remain the same. How about you? This is why I claimed that there is no way Bible can predict God's will because "it may change." > I never claimed I could tell God's intentions. I only told you that you can learn of > them in several ways and that there is a consensus that God reveals himself > through his Creation. Consensus? In what sense? Can you cite a source? Do you call something "consesus" so easily? > I hope you will kindly proceed, after answering the 3 questions I asked > you, to give interesting arguments as to why this kind of statement > does not make any sense. What 3 questions? Why don't you ask 3 million questions? You can't provide one simple answer regarding why natural revelation make sense, yet you have 3 questions? > > I never claimed that the Bible was written 5000 years ago. What I said > > is that Man, according to the Biblical story has had knowledge of God [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > few people, most people knew the concept of God after the Old Testament > part of the Bible was composed. This is quite a claim. Do you have anything with which to substantiate it? > It is important to make this distinction since a blurred and > ambiguous concept of God is not what we are talking about. Unless we go [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which one of my premises are wrong? Your assumption that God first revealed himself through scripture. Your assumption that the Bible was written 2000 years ago. Your assumption that Man first learned of God 2000 years ago. > > Can you name a single theorist who dedicated his whole life to claiming > > thath the earth is flat? Can you name at least one who on top of that is > > considered to be an authority? > > Do a search on google you lazy. You didn't provide any source > regarding natural revelation as well. You cannot come up with one single instance, can you? You just make up your weak arguments as you go and now you try to bluff your way out, instead of admitting a mistake. As for natural revelation, try Romans 1:18-20 > > Well, you were not questioning this originally since It was me who > > responded to your article, and not the other way around. So, are you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > through the Bible. If there was no Bible, how did people learn the > story of Abraham? Is this a serious question? How about "people learned of Abraham because he lived in their midst" ? > >> but Bible was written thousand years ago and it cannot possibly know in > >> advance what is God's intention thousand years later. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > may remain the same. How about you? This is why I claimed that there is > no way Bible can predict God's will because "it may change." I suppose God's will could change, I suppose. I just don't see any reason to think it has. We have had no revelation of any sort that might indicate this. The world still works the way it did 2000 years ago, nor have men changed their ways in any fundamental way. So as far as I can see yours are just void speculations. > > I never claimed I could tell God's intentions. I only told you that you can learn of > > them in several ways and that there is a consensus that God reveals himself > > through his Creation. > > Consensus? In what sense? Can you cite a source? Do you call > something "consesus" so easily? see above. > > I hope you will kindly proceed, after answering the 3 questions I asked > > you, to give interesting arguments as to why this kind of statement > > does not make any sense. > > What 3 questions? Why don't you ask 3 million questions? You can't My 3 questons to you are ¿What is the purpose of your question? ¿What is your thesis? ¿What are you trying to establish? I hope you will kindly answer them. > provide one simple answer regarding why natural revelation make sense, Do you want to know why I think that Natural Revelation makes sense? First of all, because people who should know, starting with St. Paul, say so. Secondly because in this world at least, there is a causality between the intentions and the results of an act of creation, and it doesn't seem implausible that God would act according to this principle too. > yet you have 3 questions? > My 3 questons to you are ¿What is the purpose of your question? ¿What > is your thesis? > ¿What are you trying to establish? > I hope you will kindly answer them. It is clear by now that darncat can't or won't since to do so would show him even more confused or worse. Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... > > My 3 questons to you are ¿What is the purpose of your question? ¿What > > is your thesis? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > since to do so would show him even more > confused or worse. I know you lost your patience with this guy very early in the discussion. And I must say I've been at the brink a few times too. But then he's already stopped top posting and there is some hope that he will learn that there is more to this than "winning" a debate. So please forgive me for keeping this on. Regards. >>> My 3 questons to you are ¿What is the purpose of your question? ¿What >>> is your thesis? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > then he's already stopped top posting and there is some hope that he > will learn that there is more to this than "winning" a debate. Yes, at least he's not completely beyond the pale... Mind you he then adopted another offence i.e. editing away attributions... ;-) >So please forgive me for keeping this on. If forgiving is appropriate you've got it, and respect for I believe you are doing him a favour above and beyond the call of duty. ps. I bet he believes... "Soul of a woman was created below..." Signaturehttp://ptlslzb87.blogspot.com/ ..................................................................................... > I suppose God's will could change, I suppose. > I just don't see any reason to think it has. We [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their ways in any fundamental way. So as far > as I can see yours are just void speculations. This is recursive reasoning. First I claim there is no such thing as God's revelation through its creation, now you claim that "no revelation of any sort that might indicate this." Did you realize that if "God cannot reveal its will through creation" is true, then of course "it hasn't happen?" You committed yet another logical fallacy here. > My 3 questons to you are What is the purpose of your question? What is your > thesis? What are you trying to establish? My purpose is to invite more intelligent people to come up with possible explanations of why a Bible written thoudsand years ago could predict God's will today. The second and third question are included in the answer above. Your answer is inadaquate because of the following reasons. (I am merging the other subthread into this one upon your request.) > I do not believe either Koresh or Jones received any kind > of divine revelation, I believe they were deluded men. And I am pretty > certain none of them derived their doctrines from natural revelation. They both claimed that they received revelation from God. When people like you claimed that "Every time you interact with creation, with your fellow human beings or introspect, you have an opportunity to learn about God's intentions," you are saying that you can acquire revelation from God. Though the former is direct, the latter is indirect, but the essense is the same -- revelation from God. As a matter of fact, the former makes more sense: if God wants to let his intention be known, why doesn't He tell the person directly? What's the point to let people figure it out by themselves, and how is it possible? (answer these question please, do not evade) This view point is consistent with the article "the necessity of scripture," which claims "Natural revelation's insufficiency to teach the nature of God makes Scripture indispensable." (See http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj15f.pdf#search='natural%20revelation%20de... ) And in article "Divine revelation" the author also agrees that "Natural revelation can never lead a soul to a knowledge of salvation and the true God;" (See http://www.tecmalta.org/tft102.htm ) And the article "God and Revelation" expresses the same viewpoint: "God has revealed Himself in two ways. The first is natural revelation, which comes from nature. <snip> This type of revelation can only give partial knowledge of the attributes of God." and that "There is little need to dwell on what can be learned from natural revelation since it is limited and imperfect and can tell little of God's purpose in creating the world or of His moral character." The term "natural revelation" mentioned in these articles is basically identical to the definition in http://www.eternalministries.org/articles/NaturalRevelationPresupp.htm . I hope you comment on these quotes and do not evade them again. > Do you want to know why I think that Natural > Revelation makes sense? First of all, because [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > seem implausible that God would act according > to this principle too. This is yet another logical fallacy. If intention can activate cause-and-effect does not make it necessary that every cause-and-effect is the result of an intention. "If A then B" does not equal "If B then A." Your thinking is flawed yet again. > > I suppose God's will could change, I suppose. > > I just don't see any reason to think it has. We [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > course "it hasn't happen?" You committed yet another logical fallacy > here. First let me ask you to observe a few more rules when posting. Please do not delete attributions. Please indicate that you have cut out part of the content by marking it with "<snip>" or something. Please leave enough of the context so that it is easy to see where some argument is coming from. Your claiming that there is no such thing as Natural Revelation, does not establish it as a fact. Therefore I am under no obligation to accept this as a true postulate in my reasoning, especially if one considers that you have provided no evidence to support this claim at all, and that by all appearances you were not even aware of the concept of Natural Revelation when this discussion started. Anyway, what is all this fuss you are making, this obsession with logical fallacies? You asked me wether I was open minded enough to believe God's will could change. I answered yes, that is something that I consider to be a possibility although I am not inclined to believe that it has occurred as there is no apparent evidence. And all you come up with is some measly construed argument that I have incurred in yet another logical fallacy. Are you trying to make a point of substance here or are you just trying to keep the upper hand by any means available? > > My 3 questons to you are What is the purpose of your question? What is your > > thesis? What are you trying to establish? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > predict God's will today. The second and third question are included in > the answer above. So there's the meat after all. If you want more intelligent people to participate then you should be more careful about how you introduce the discussion. You probably antagonized almost everyone by top posting and then the rest by starting an argument claiming that top posting was just fine. Then you also lost much of any audience you might have had(if you ever had any, considering the groups this is being posted in (sorry guys)) by making false statements. Now I will tell you what I think. This question makes only sense within a religious context and under the assumption that the Bible is a holy book. The Bible then, is a revelation from God. It is not constrained to a certain time or historic moment. It is not a mere collection of histories and stories. It is a book that contains and transmits wisdom in many forms. There is nothing within the Bible that states that it is only valid during a certain amount of time. So, if in fact the Bible reveals the will of God, then it does so forever. That is my personal opinion, which I hope is not too erred. > Your answer is inadaquate because of the following reasons. (I am > merging the other subthread into this one upon your request.) [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > (answer these question please, do not evade) Again, I do not believe these men received any kind of divine revelation, I think they were just deluded. What is your point ? Appart from that, I cannot tell you why God chooses to act in a certain way rather than in a way that is more appealing to you. I suggest you ask God, or his ministers, or some theologician. I do not know how to answer such a question. > This view point is consistent with the article "the necessity of > scripture," which claims "Natural revelation's insufficiency to teach [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I hope you comment on these quotes and do not evade them again. What do you want me to say to you about your quotations? It is obvious that you were not even aware of the concept of Natural Revelation before this discussion started. I simply pointed you towards the fact that the Scriptures are not the only way that God reveals himself to Man as you were wrongly assuming, and mentioned this special form as an example. There are others, which you can also read about. If you have anything to say about this topic, I will comment on it providing I have pertinent answers. I will certainly not discuss with you at this point some articles that you went and googled up. > > Do you want to know why I think that Natural > > Revelation makes sense? First of all, because [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is the result of an intention. "If A then B" does not equal "If B then > A." Your thinking is flawed yet again. I im getting quite tired of this fallacies BS. You asked me my opinion and I gave it to you. I did not claim this to be a fact. I did not claim this to be a proof. I do not make use of the term "implication" or a synonym of it. I merely stated that it would seem plausible to me that God acted according to a principle that is valid in our world. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message