djrafikie

It's amazing that you can see that there are other options when it comes to someone else, yet are so utterly unmoving yourself.


Define Truth.

Just the word, don't go off on a tangent. Don't use a dictionary, write your own personal definiton of what truth means to you.

Johnny Skeptic

If homosexuals are put to death before they are sent to hell, that would include homosexuals who are in their 20's. It would be unfair not to give them the opportunity to give up homosexuality for at least a normal lifetime. What about 14 year olds who practice homosexuality? Would rhutchin want to kill them too? One wonders to what extent rhutchin would endorse killing people.

Julian

No, the only faith that matters is that which is based on fact and rational bias. Truth only exists in mathematics, where you can show truth with proofs, and philosophy where nothing can be proven and pointlessness ensues. Since you can provide no facts to back up the existence of god, you seem to be confused as your posts amply demonstrate.

Julian

Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying that philosophy is pointless? If so, you will encounter a lot of opposition, including from me. Possibly the main reason why people refuse to become Christians, or give up Christiantity, is because of the philosophical issue of the character of the God of the Bible.

Consider the following:

http://skepdic.com/russell.html

Bertrand Russell

The values of philosophy

Having now come to the end of our brief and very incomplete review of the problems of philosophy, it will be well to consider, in conclusion, what is the value of philosophy and why it ought to be studied. It is the more necessary to consider this question, in view of the fact that many men, under the influence of science or of practical affairs, are inclined to doubt whether philosophy is anything better than innocent but useless trifling, hair-splitting distinctions, and controversies on matters concerning which knowledge is impossible.

This view of philosophy appears to result, partly from a wrong conception of the ends of life, partly from a wrong conception of the kind of goods which philosophy strives to achieve. Physical science, through the medium of inventions, is useful to innumerable people who are wholly ignorant of it; thus the study of physical science is to be recommended, not only, or primarily, because of the effect on the student, but rather because of the effect on mankind in general. This utility does not belong to philosophy. If the study of philosophy has any value at all for others than students of philosophy, it must be only indirectly, through its effects upon the lives of those who study it. It is in these effects, therefore, if anywhere, that the value of philosophy must be primarily sought.

But further, if we are not to fail in our endeavour to determine the value of philosophy, we must first free our minds from the prejudices of what are wrongly called 'practical' men. The 'practical' man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs, who realizes that men must have food for the body, but is oblivious of the necessity of providing food for the mind. If all men were well off, if poverty and disease had been reduced to their lowest possible point, there would still remain much to be done to produce a valuable society; and even in the existing world the goods of the mind are at least as important as the goods of the body. It is exclusively among the goods of the mind that the value of philosophy is to be found; and only those who are not indifferent to these goods can be persuaded that the study of philosophy is not a waste of time.

Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astronomy, was once included in philosophy; Newton's great work was called 'the mathematical principles of natural philosophy'. Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been separated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology. Thus, to a great extent, the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real: those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed in the sciences, while those only to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy.

This is, however, only a part of the truth concerning the uncertainty of philosophy. There are many questions -- and among them those that are of the profoundest interest to our spiritual life -- which, so far as we can see, must remain insoluble to the human intellect unless its powers become of quite a different order from what they are now. Has the universe any unity of plan or purpose, or is it a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Is consciousness a permanent part of the universe, giving hope of indefinite growth in wisdom, or is it a transitory accident on a small planet on which life must ultimately become impossible? Are good and evil of importance to the universe or only to man? Such questions are asked by philosophy, and variously answered by various philosophers. But it would seem that, whether answers be otherwise discoverable or not, the answers suggested by philosophy are none of them demonstrably true. Yet, however slight may be the hope of discovering an answer, it is part of the business of philosophy to continue the consideration of such questions, to make us aware of their importance, to examine all the approaches to them, and to keep alive that speculative interest in the universe which is apt to be killed by confining ourselves to definitely ascertainable knowledge.

Many philosophers, it is true, have held that philosophy could establish the truth of certain answers to such fundamental questions. They have supposed that what is of most importance in religious beliefs could be proved by strict demonstration to be true. In order to judge of such attempts, it is necessary to take a survey of human knowledge, and to form an opinion as to its methods and its limitations. On such a subject it would be unwise to pronounce dogmatically; but if the investigations of our previous chapters have not led us astray, we shall be compelled to renounce the hope of finding philosophical proofs of religious beliefs. We cannot, therefore, include as part of the value of philosophy any definite set of answers to such questions. Hence, once more, the value of philosophy must not depend upon any supposed body of definitely ascertainable knowledge to be acquired by those who study it.

The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

Johnny: It is interesting that you mentioned mathematics. Russell was in fact a mathematician, as well as a philosopher, logician, writer, and Nobel Prize Laureate in Literature. Consider the following from Wikipedia:

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell OM FRS (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970), was a British philosopher, logician, and mathematician, working mostly in the 20th century. A prolific writer, Bertrand Russell was also a populariser of philosophy and a commentator on a large variety of topics, ranging from very serious issues to the mundane. Continuing a family tradition in political affairs, he was a prominent anti-war activist for most of his long life, championing free trade between nations and anti-imperialism.[1][2] Millions looked up to Russell as a prophet of the creative and rational life; at the same time, his stances on many topics were extremely controversial.

Russell was born at the height of Britain's economic and political ascendancy. He died of influenza nearly a century later, at a time when the British Empire had all but vanished, its power dissipated by two debilitating world wars. As one of the world's best-known intellectuals, Russell's voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s. Among his political activities, Russell was a vigorous proponent of nuclear disarmament and an outspoken critic of the American war in Vietnam.

In 1950, Russell was made a Nobel Laureate in Literature, "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought".

rhutchin

Poorly stated, but let me see if I make it understandable.

You say that the statement--

1. "The only faith that matters is that which is based on truth," is incorrect but the statement,

2. "the only faith that matters is that which is based on fact and rational bias," we can conclude that you mean to say that--

3. Truth does not equal fact and rational bias because it is wrong to say that faith is based on truth and correct to say that faith is based on fact and rational bias.

Wikipedia says about truth--
Common dictionary definitions of truth mention some form of accord with fact or reality. There is, however, no single definition of truth about which scholars agree, and numerous theories of truth continue to be widely debated. Differing opinions exist on such questions as what constitutes truth, how to define and identify truth, what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play, and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims.

I guess we really cannot know whether faith is based on truth until people can define truth.

So. let's ignore truth and deal with facts. It is a fact that all people die one day. It is also a fact that something (maybe that something is "nothing") happens after death.

The existence of God is demonstrated by the facts that exist but only become known after death.

Johnny Skeptic

But reasonably proving the existence of God is not sufficient without accompanying reasonable evidence that he has good character. You do not have any credible evidence that God has good character, and there is sufficient evidence that God has poor character. Therefore, you lose.

By the way, if I start a new thread on inerrancy, or bring back someone else's thread on inerrancy, will you participate in it? There were two recent threads on inerrancy, but for some strange reason, you did not make one single post in either one of them. This means that you are not nearly as confident of your arguments about inerrancy as you pretend you are. You deliberately avoided discussing inerrancy for many months at the EofG Forum, and you have been quite elusive at this forum as well.

You frequently mention the historical evidence in the Bible. I challenge you to participate in the thread that is titled 'Historical-Jesus Advocates: What's Historical in the Gospels?' We shall see if you are as confident of your historical arguments as you pretend you are.

rhutchin

Suficient to prove what?? Lose what??

Character is a non-issue. The issue is whether God exists. If God exists, then you are accountable to Him. If the Bible is true (and God is of good character), then you know what to expect. If the Bible is not true (as you maintain is possible) and you cannot be sure about God's character, then you do not know what to expect.

What do I lose in this situation? Where does character fit in the equation?

You start it. Pick an example and explain why it is an error. Don't use a number example unless you can explain how numbers are noted in Hebrew (this is because I do not know Hebrew and those examples generally require that a person know Hebrew). Pick an example that deals with a substantive issue of doctrine.

rhutchin

I have no problem with options. I continually focus on the choices that people make. People choose among options.

Truth is that which accurately describes that which exists.

We can identify A and ~A, where either A or ~A must be a truth.

For example, God exists or God does not exist and one of those statements accurately describes the situation.

rhutchin

If so, I do not know why.

According to my beliefs, sex outside marriage is sin and any sin will prevent a person entering heaven. Consequently, a homosexual will spend eternity in hell (assuming that he does not do anything about his sin prior to death and his judgment before God).

Regardless whether you think it is ugly and twisted, the real issue is whether I am telling you the truth (accurating describing the situation that the homosexual faces). If I have accurately described that situation, then the last thing a homosexual should do is avoid the Bible.

rhutchin

Would you consider it equally appalling if it was rape for which capital punishment was given? Some people may think that sex is natural and the person who refuses the advances of another is being selfish and wrong. So, who sets the standards for determining what is right or wrong and what deserves capital punishment and how are those standards set?

So, would you advocate that society not force a people's actions to conform to some bizarre ideal based on that which society coaxes and threatens (i.e., that society have no rules).