daemon

Amos claims to be a Roman Catholic, though his personal theology is so mangled as to be unrecognizable as Catholic. I also sincerely doubt he knows what a Scientologist is.

i_am_the_head

Hmmm, I was Roman Catholic for 18 years - pretty devout about it too. And I don't see much remotely Catholic in Amos' randomly strung together words.

As for the Scientology accusation, I just decided it had to be something wacky (not that most [all?] religion isn't wacky).

GunnerJ

Alright, guys, let's stop making fun of Amos. Sure, his posts are a little whacky, but he may have something to them. Amos, from what I can tell, you employ a type of psychological/metaphorical theology that uses Biblical symbolism to show it's "mythical," in a Cambellian sense, truths. Could you explain to us inquiring minds what you're all about?

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Ed

Yes and you still haven't refuted it. Tautologies are not equivalent to falsehoods. Take the common summary of natural selection, ie survival of the fittest, that is a tautology but it is also a true statement. The second is law of logic, ie the cause cannot be a part of the effect. And if the third is not true then science has been totally wrong for 100 years and in fact if it is not true then evolution is wrong.

Amos

The name that best describes me is "gypsy romantic." Yes, I have certain insights and can read the bible as if it was a grade school story book. I do the same with classical literature and can detect the lyrical limitations of authors. So I am a critic, you can say. To memorize things is extremely difficult for me and most often go by my intuit resources.

What else is there to say? I have a BA with a major in Philosophy at the age of 38? Married with 4 children?

Amos

Datheron

Ed,

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
That is because it doesn't explain anything! That is why I denounce it as merely a tautology - you have not explained exactly what constitutes as "the personal" or what is considered to be "personal" outside of the circular definition. Is a relationship with your pet "personal"? It cannot advance as an argument in such a vague manner, and I think you know it, but is just unable to give adaquete support.

...and you have not shown that the laws of logic have any meaning outside of our Universe!

I never said it wasn't true; rather, I don't think it even merits an inquery to its accuracy. A "diversity within a unity" is just one of the many properties that this world holds, all of which can be stretched to make some bizarre and far-fetching connection. For example:

- The Universe is naturally chaotic. Therefore anarchy is the correct system of gov't.
- The Universe is by large uniform throughout (a physics fact, if you want to check up on it), and is decided equal in all directions, therefore communism is the right gov't.
- Evolution shows that the strongest usually survive, therefore fascism/imperialism is the correct form of gov't.

And I may even argue by your lines that since the Universe displays a "diversity within a unity", a republic is the correct gov'tal system. The connection is simply non-sequitur, and you really stretch the analogous possibilities. In other words, no.

GunnerJ

Sorry to but in, but I can't let a bad argument stand:

Eh? Do you actually know what natural selection is? I'll give you a hint: it is (id est or i.e.) not "survival of the fittest." Further, "survival of the fittest" is only a tautology if you define the word "fittest" as "those who survive." And if you did that, then it would be a tautology, and it would be fallicious, because it explains and proves nothing: "The survival of the survivers" can be written, "The survivors survive," which is pretty obvious, and makes the whole phrase meaningless. Thus, your analogy fails.

Ed

No, a human is not transcendent. Remember I also said the cause must be transcendent.

Quote:

Ed:In addition, the cause of the universe must be "outside" it, in other words transcendent to it. Critic:It must? "Outside" now there is a concept and location we will never find.

It is not a "place". It is an ontological position. God is ontologically transcendent to the universe.

Quote:

Ed:Also, the primary characteristic of the universe is that it is a diversity within a unity. Critic:That is a useless try at grouping. It has no benefit nor any common characteristic therefore, it is not a meaningful group or unity.

How is it not a meaningful group?

Quote:

Ed:According to the law of sufficient cause it is rational to assume that the cause of the universe has a similar characteristic. Critic:Which would be something similar to the universe, not a god which is not similar to a universe. A God is a God. A universe is a universe.

No, an effect is not a mirror image of its cause but it does share some of the properties that are necessary to produce the effect.

[b] Just as a side note the scriptures do not define God as only love. Nevertheless, love exists in the universe. Where did it come from? How can impersonal processes produce love? How can love come from non-love? And since love and personal beings that love are far more complex than gas and rocks, then whatever causes personal beings that love to come into existence could easily create gas and rocks.

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Ed ]</p>

Ed

Personal has two meanings, first as it relates to a being it is something that has a mind, will, conscience, emotions, and etc. Second it can mean anything relating to a personal being or person.

Quote:

Ed: In addition, the cause of the universe must be "outside" it, in other words transcendent to it. This fits the Christian God. Rim:And a great many others. I think a Muslim would have to atribute both personal and trancendant to Allah.

But Allah is a pure unity and the universe is a diversity within a unity, therefore Allah can be eliminated as the likely cause of the universe.

Quote:

Ed: Also, the primary characteristic of the universe is that it is a diversity within a unity. Rim:And just what, exavlty, does that mean? This seems like more obfuscationism at work. I'd have to say that the primary aspect of the Universe is that it's composed of 99% vacuum. An the 1% (probably less) that isn't empty spcae is 99% helium and hydrogen in a plasma.

Diversity within a unity means that the universe is one entity made up of many galaxies, each galaxy is made up of many stars, and yet each star is different, matter is made up atoms and yet each atom is different. Living things are made up of cells and yet each cell is different, and so on.

Quote:

Ed: According to the law of sufficient cause it is rational to assume that the cause of the universe has a similar characteristic. And only the Triune Christian God has that characteristic. Rim:Trinity is a "diversity within a unity?" When you tell me what that is, I'll answer it. If you're going to argue that God's nature is reflected in his creation, you'd have to assume that God is mostly empty spcae, with a tiny amout of plasmatic H and He, and an even smaller amount of more complex elements.

See above about unity and diversity. No, an effect is not a mirror image of its cause but it does reflect characteristics of its cause and it contains some of what it took to produce it.

[b] You are right, but those three things point to the christian God, so then we have to find out if anything or anyone claims to have some communication from the Christian God. And we find that there is something that makes such a claim. And that is the Bible. In the bible we learn his other characteristics. But we can reason that He has some of those characteristics without the bible. Because if he created ALL that exists then by definition, he is has ALL power, therefore He has all knowledge since he knows all that he created, which is all that exists. His omnipresence and benevolence can only be learned from his communication to us, ie the scriptures.

Ed

The number of personal beings in the universe is irrelevant. The fact that there are ANY personal beings in it point to the fact that its cause has a personal aspect to it, because only persons can produce the personal.