FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-12-2002, 06:40 PM   #91
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,945
Post

Just a general observation.
Christians are not "treading on thin ice." We are standing firm on the self-revelation of the God who created everything.
However, even if we were (treading on thin ice) that's better than treading water in a sea of skepticism which is the olny place atheists have to "stand."
theophilus is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 06:41 PM   #92
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: .
Posts: 1,653
Post

Theophilus, I actually asked for your interpretation of the Trinity. Your displeasure should be directed at me. I have read such mean-spirited nonsense on this thread, I begin to think the Trinity is called Bitch, Moan, and Snipe.

Bonduca, vastly disappointed
bonduca is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 06:47 PM   #93
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,945
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet:
<strong>When I attempted to interpret your statement, you explained quite delicately (not!) about how I must be ignorant, yet you haven't explained why what I said was incorrect. I'd like to find out what was wrong with my intepretation that merited such contempt.

Jeff</strong>
My "contempt" (I do not hereby acknowledge that I hold you in contempt) is for those who presumes to speak against the things of God when they obviously havn't the least idea of what they're talking about.

Your mischaracterization of the Trinity in the post to which I first responded displays such a failing. You were not asking for an explanation of the doctrine, you were making a criticism of those who believe it. It is more than ironic that you would now whine about being mistreated.

I have already answered, that there is no "interpretation" of the doctrine. The doctrine itself is a way of reconciling disparate passages of scripture which attribute deity to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while maintaining an uncompromising monotheism.

This answer will have to do for you and anyone else who has enquired.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]</p>
theophilus is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 07:09 PM   #94
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,309
Post

Quote:
I have already answered, that there is no "interpretation" of the doctrine. The doctrine itself is a way of reconciling disparate passages of scripture which attribute deity to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while maintaining an uncompromising monotheism.
So, how do you know that there is no interpretation of the doctrine?

How do you know that my attempt to make sense of it was contemptible?

Why do you presume that your opinion of the trinity is more accurate than my attempt to paraphrase it? Are you God's official spokesperson? When were you ordained? If a prophet were to speak with God, would He say, "Ah, just speak to Theophilus. He can answer the question better than I can"?

Jeff
Not Prince Hamlet is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 07:14 PM   #95
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Post

theophilus: 'Christians are not "treading on thin ice." We are standing firm on the self-revelation of the God who created everything.'

There is nothing firm about "self-revelations" when you cannot distinguish such revelations from the unseen interlocutors of paranoics.

By anyone's definition, God is beyond your sensory perceptions so you are in no position to say what has been revealed to you comes from God.

And naturally, there is nothing in the world to sustain the thesis of a divine creation of the world.

'However, even if we were (treading on thin ice) that's better than treading water in a sea of skepticism which is the olny place atheists have to "stand."'

Not being an atheist, I see you both, theist and atheist, as being up shit creek without a paddle.

[ March 12, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>
spin is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 07:20 PM   #96
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Post

theophilus on the trinity:
---------------
I have already answered, that there is no "interpretation" of the doctrine. The doctrine itself is a way of reconciling disparate passages of scripture which attribute deity to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while maintaining an uncompromising monotheism.
---------------

This is not too bad: it accepts that the trinity has no necessary connection with any reality, but reconciles "disparate" passages of the bible. But theophilus should investigate the history of the development of the trinity non sequitur and see that it was as much a matter of backing mainstream christianity into a theological corner after having veered between Montanist and Ebionite.
spin is offline  
Old 03-12-2002, 09:45 PM   #97
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
Post

Spin,

Quote:
Tercel in a long post, principally about noses (though 99% is involved in the trend),
Hey, I wasn’t the one who brought up the specific subject of noses for comparison so don’t blame me! But we poor humble Christian Apologists simply have to work with whatever we’re given...

Quote:
seems to argue a crypto-Berkeyan position that one, using empiricism, can't really even "know" that one's nose exists. This is a sad sort of reductionism that is not practised under normal cicumstances by Tercel, otherwise we must assume that Tercel is arguing with entities s/he is willing to accept may not exist.
A “sad sort of reductionism” eh? What about, “an obvious epistemological problem”?
And, as to the suggestion: Yes, I am consistent in my application of logic, and thus I do believe that it is possible you do not exist. And I’m a he.

Quote:
In his discussion about noses s/he seems to have missed out on the sense of touch as well as the existence of mirrors. I don't think noses are just pink blurs for the eyes to see. Mirrors are wonderful devices when use well.
I had considered both points, however, as 99% didn’t mention either, I saw no reason to bring them up.

Quote:
Our knowlege of the world comes directly from our sensory perceptions, so everything that Tercel knows comes the same way.
Not true. All sensory data comes directly from our sensory perceptions. However for it to be knowledge, the data must be interpreted by our minds first. Hence, I could agree with the first part of your statement above if you modified “directly” to “indirectly”. However the second part is still false because you confuse knowledge of the world with knowledge in general. (I suppose you could save the second part by defining “the world” as “all that exists” rather than the physical world, but then the first part of the statement would be falsified once more)

Quote:
Human beings don't have extra sensory equipment.
Is this an assertion of objective fact? -In which case, please prove it. A statement of your belief?
What do you mean exactly by “extra sensory”?

Quote:
Tercel: 'I see a pink blur if I cross my eyes, the only way I know it as my "nose" is by inference based on past experience.'

Why ignore the (continuous) sensory data? Or the relationship between actions of smelling, where you have to use the nose to get a certain type of sensory data, which involves consciously directing the nose to the target to get the data.
Your nose is part of your direct sensory perception, ie of the most primitive data that you receive, before being worked over by the brain and elaborated upon.
I do not deny that I am continuously receiving sensory data which suggests I have a nose. However, this data is not absolute proof of the existence of my nose, only proof of the existence of the data.

Quote:
Any notion of a god that you have is not based on the primitive sensory data you receive. In fact, you are unable to verify to yourself any direct perception of a god. It would have hit the news otherwise.
I’m not sure I follow.

Quote:
Another great line: "The non-existence of my nose is possible. Something might be interfering with my perceptions in such a way that empirical observation demonstrates me to have a nose when really I haven't. Certainly the non-existence of my nose does not imply contradiction."
Why posit something that is not evident into the argument that makes the case you are attempting to make that much more extracted from reality? The argument this belongs to says that you can know absolutely nothing. This is not the case though, for you claim to know things, so you don't believe your own argumentation. It is merely sophistry.
No, it’s quite relevant. My point is that Solipsism could be true, the world is only known through the senses which may be being deceived. However, it is possible to know God directly in your “heart”, that is, having an absolute surety in your mind which transcends either the physical senses or rational argument. It is a direct knowledge of God. -One just knows.
Hence, 99%’s argument is refuted. Not only can I know God exists, I can know it more surely than I “know” my nose exists.

Quote:
"Now I do believe my nose exists, I am very very sure of its existence, but it is possible that it doesn't really exist and hence I don't truly know that my nose exists. It is not complete knowledge."
What does the term complete knowledge mean (in some context that we all will accept)?
By “complete knowledge” here I am meaning absolute certainty. I have a very very very strong belief in my nose’s existence. However, because it is possible that it doesn’t exist I cannot be absolutely certain (or “know”) that it does.

Quote:
Tercel:
"it is precisely why God's existence is capable of being more certain than the existence of my nose. You don't need faith to believe in God's existence: You need to believe in God's existence before you can have faith."
Hence without belief you cannot have this brand of faith.
Yes.

Quote:
99%: I certainly don't need faith to know that my nose exists. I just know.

Tercel responds: "EXACTLY. Same with God."

Tercel just knows that God exists. This knowledge of course does not come from direct sensory input of this god;
It could be argued that it does, depending on how willing you are to stretch the word “sensory”. If you wish to confine it to our 5 physical senses, then the answer is: no I have not had such direct sensory input of God. However, the whole point of my argument is that it is possible to simply and absolutely know that God exists in some part of one’s mind more basic that the rational or sensory level, call it “heart”, “spirit”, “bosom” (as Albert put it) or whatever.

Quote:
[Tercel’s knowledge of God’s existence] only comes from what s/he has read or been told about the god;
No it doesn’t. That’s the whole point here.

Quote:
Tercel does not engage in the notion of direct empirical support of the belief that God exists, yet argues from some notion of "know" which does not entail direct observation or repeatability of the said existence. Tercel doesn't know *nothing* about what s/he's talking about if one uses the common usage of the term "know", which is based on direct observance of data.
Regardless of what great authority you think you have to decide what I should mean by the word “know”, 99% and I seem to have settled on the understanding that it refers to an absolute mental certainty as opposed to a strong belief.
I would also point out that your empiricist definition is rather dubious (depending on exactly how far you’re willing to stretch “empirical”) - as by your notion of empirical support being required you would appear to rule out the possibility of knowing your own thoughts since they are not derived from sensual data. (Though no doubt that could be amended without too much difficultly.)

Tercel
Tercel is offline  
Old 03-13-2002, 04:35 AM   #98
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,309
Post

Quote:
However, it is possible to know God directly in your “heart”, that is, having an absolute surety in your mind which transcends either the physical senses or rational argument.
Tercel,

You have not shown this. In this respect, this "knowing God in your heart" is no different from knowing you have a nose: it's something you've convinced yourself is true, either based on evidence or out of thin air. You have not yet shown Cogitas ergo God est.

In fact, I'll go one step further.

A primary argument that theists often use as proof of God's existence, is "If God doesn't exist, where did the universe come from?"

Well, if the universe doesn't exist (solipsism), then for what purpose would there be a god? If the universe doesn't exist, pretty much every shred of suggestive evidence supporting God (the Bible, scrolls of prophets, other people testifying, etc.) all vanish leaving God as completely unsubstantiated.

In fact, without the universe, this very suggestive evidence now works to disprove the existence of God. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." But there is no Earth, according to solipsism, which means that the Bible is false. (And in fact, there is no Bible either.)

Solipsism is a better argument for religons such as Buddhism and support dieties like the Hindu Mara (the evil, misleading dreams) than it is for the Christian God.

Jeff
Not Prince Hamlet is offline  
Old 03-13-2002, 07:46 AM   #99
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Post

Tercel:
------------------------
And, as to the suggestion: Yes, I am consistent in my application of logic, and thus I do believe that it is possible you do not exist.
------------------------

If you can argue with an entity you believe possibly doesn't exist, then I can accept the fact that you believe in God -- as you have no facilities to verify such an entity either.


spin:
------------------------
Our knowlege of the world comes directly from our sensory perceptions, so everything that Tercel knows comes the same way.
------------------------

Tercel:
------------------------
Not true. All sensory data comes directly from our sensory perceptions. However for it to be knowledge, the data must be interpreted by our minds first. Hence, I could agree with the first part of your statement above if you modified “directly” to “indirectly”.
------------------------

Would you like to cite an example of any knowledge that you have received, which is not based on knowledge received through the senses (and which you can in some way objectivize for us)?

Tercel:
------------------------
However the second part is still false because you confuse knowledge of the world with knowledge in general. (I suppose you could save the second part by defining “the world” as “all that exists” rather than the physical world, but then the first part of the statement would be falsified once more)
------------------------

Whether we are dealing with complex ideas that the brain constructs out of simple sensory data or not, all your knowledge has come from without you. About the only thing that you might quibble on are the unique arrangements you make of that knowledge, which you have to test objectively for it to be knowledge, but you haven't.

spin:
------------------------
Human beings don't have extra sensory equipment.
------------------------

Tercel:
------------------------
Is this an assertion of objective fact? -In which case, please prove it.
------------------------

Look in Gray's Anatomy to start with.

Tercel:
------------------------
What do you mean exactly by “extra sensory”?
------------------------

That which doesn't arrive via the senses.

Tercel:
------------------------
I do not deny that I am continuously receiving sensory data which suggests I have a nose. However, this data is not absolute proof of the existence of my nose, only proof of the existence of the data.
------------------------

Let me cut it off and you won't have to worry.

Your requirement of "absolute proof" is back to Berkeley once again. You cannot know anything under the distorted criteria you seem to be using. Your life must be either an epistemological nightmare or you're talking rot for the sake of argument.

spin:
------------------------
Any notion of a god that you have is not based on the primitive sensory data you receive. In fact, you are unable to verify to yourself any direct perception of a god. It would have hit the news otherwise.
------------------------

If someone had found a way of objectively show the existence of God, you would have heard about it in a big way: Erroll Funt of Austin Texas has stunned the world this afternoon by demonstrating that God is not a figment of the imagination but is alive and living in Hell in Norway, or somesuch.

This has not happened. No-one has direct sensory data regarding God. God is beyond you to know in any meaningful sense of the word.
Tercel:
------------------------
My point is that Solipsism could be true, the world is only known through the senses which may be being deceived. However, it is possible to know God directly in your “heart”, that is, having an absolute surety in your mind which transcends either the physical senses or rational argument.
------------------------

This is an argument for the paranoic I've mentioned a few times who has an unseen interlocutor. I think you render the word "know" meaningless in the above phrase. You have no way to validify the data you receive.

Tercel:
------------------------
It is a direct knowledge of God. -One just knows.
------------------------

I think you are having linguistic problems. Please distinguish between "know" in the above and what I understand as "believe" in its normal sense.

Tercel:
------------------------
By “complete knowledge” here I am meaning absolute certainty. I have a very very very strong belief in my nose’s existence. However, because it is possible that it doesn’t exist I cannot be absolutely certain (or “know&#8221 that it does.
------------------------

Replace the word knows above with the word God.

Your terminology is a meaningless distinction.

99%:
------------------------
I certainly don't need faith to know that my nose exists. I just know.

Tercel
------------------------
"EXACTLY. Same with God."

spin:
------------------------
Tercel just knows that God exists. This knowledge of course does not come from direct sensory input of this god;
------------------------

Tercel:
------------------------
It could be argued that it does, depending on how willing you are to stretch the word “sensory”. If you wish to confine it to our 5 physical senses, then the answer is: no I have not had such direct sensory input of God.
------------------------

Would you like to propose some other sensory equipment that people can check out? Let's have another scoop for CNN.

Tercel:
------------------------
However, the whole point of my argument is that it is possible to simply and absolutely know that God exists in some part of one’s mind more basic that the rational or sensory level, call it “heart”, “spirit”, “bosom” (as Albert put it) or whatever.
------------------------

Please define "know" in the above which makes it different from "believe". You seem to consistently abstract your arguments so you don't have to face the implications of your normal means of receiving knowledge.

spin:
------------------------
[Tercel’s knowledge of God’s existence] only comes from what s/he has read or been told about the god;
------------------------

Tercel:
------------------------
No it doesn’t. That’s the whole point here.
------------------------

The whole point is you have no argument to the contrary. You have no way of demonstrating what you want to say. You arbitrarily use words in non-standard ways to hide your problems. You argue to deny the only known (and shown) means of receiving data. So, your bald "no it doesn't" has little value in the conversation.


Tercel:
------------------------
Regardless of what great authority you think you have to decide what I should mean by the word “know”, 99% and I seem to have settled on the understanding that it refers to an absolute mental certainty as opposed to a strong belief.
------------------------

Complicity doesn't prove a case.

Tercel:
------------------------
I would also point out that your empiricist definition is rather dubious (depending on exactly how far you’re willing to stretch “empirical&#8221 - as by your notion of empirical support being required you would appear to rule out the possibility of knowing your own thoughts since they are not derived from sensual data. (Though no doubt that could be amended without too much difficultly.)
------------------------

I have said knowledge is directly based on primitive sensory data. We construct complex ideas based on that primitive sensory data. Such ideas could be non-existent monsters, or gods of various flavours, or what a table is. There is no problem of having complex ideas in one's mind. It doesn't change the fact that knowledge is directly based on sensory inputs. We can then test the complex ideas through direct sensory inputs.
spin is offline  
Old 03-13-2002, 08:04 AM   #100
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,309
Post

I have to say that I'm intrigued to see if Tercel can turn Hume's works into a proof for the existence of a god.

Jeff
Not Prince Hamlet is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:44 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.