[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Why don’t you say what you mean and be done with it? Complete surrender to scripture. Blind faith. Say it and be done with it. [/quote]That IS what I have been saying. It’s only by this “blind” faith that one does aquire true sight. Micheal Card really REALLY gets it. - YouTube I’m askin you to listen to this 3 minute song all the way through. I promise I will listen to or watch whatever may have for me in the future. I rarely post videos or links to anybody else’s thought. Cortes may actually like this. (you probably won’t) This song hits it right dead on.
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< But, it was, I repeat, a damned good summary of the absolute core of what pretty much every religious discussion we’ve had on this board over the past year or more has been leading to. [/quote]Why thank you Cortes. But don’t ya see,(Van Til always said that) this is the absolute core of EVERY discussion, even if only unconsciously assumed, which is usually the case. Not just religious, but philosophical and scientific as well. People everywhere simply meander through life making universal uninterrupted use of a set of intellectual rules without even once ever questioning either their origin or validity. They simply proceed as if it’s a preeminent given that logic governs their reality in such a way that not one coherent thought word or deed would be possible without it.
My contention is… hang on… they’re right!!! With one fatal flaw. By every "religious’ definition there is, they worship logic itself instead of the super-logical God who has created us in is image and in so doing has lent us a finite derivative version of HIS logic. Only He has the full version. That’s why when someone asks “how can God decree evil and not be it’s author and thereby responsible for it?” or “How can God choose individuals to save and damn and those individuals still be free and responsible?” my profound, goose bump inducing answer is… “I dunno” LOL!!! I don’t even pretend to try n know.
Seriously. I use the same logic everybody else does, except that by His grace I’m freed to operate it properly under His divine tutelage with Him defining it’s parameters to me and not the other way around. “Why that’s just a circular statement of blind faith”. From our limited standpoint? Of course it is. I have flatly stated that myself.
I do not and have never claimed to know everything, but I do KNOW that HE knows everything and that is where my certainty derives from. Once again. A child does not know what his father knows, but he knows that his father knows it. He has no idea how Daddy’s grown up world operates. He simply trusts that Daddy does. I do the same. Jesus Himself said that we must come to Him as little children.
Is this what He meant? You better believe this is what He meant. I don’t understand MOST of the skull popping statements God makes about Himself in the bible, but I know He does. Let’s try just one. “And God said ‘let there be light’… and there was light”. WoohooHOOO!!! LOL!!! Lemme know when yer thesis is done on that one LOL!!! (I’m not laughin at ya BTW). I’m sure you get my point.
I don’t have a “problem of evil” for instance because intellectually speaking evil is no problem for me. Why is there evil? (or why did God create Satan?) Because almighty God decreed it to His own glory. He orders it so that He can display both His love, mercy and tenderness on one hand and His holiness, wrath and justice on the other.
Couldn’t He have created so as to avoid all this suffering and accomplished the same thing? I don’t know that either. I just know that He didn’t and therefore this way is better for Him which by definition makes it better period because everything and everyone belongs to Him.
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. Romans 11:36. Romans is the King’s feast of the truth of Jesus Christ. That book could be studied for 10 lifetimes.
[quote]groo wrote:<<< Ok I’ll start with this. Everything everyone holds to be true that is not simply some synthetic statement or groups of them, is at least partially believed from tradition or emotion. Nothing or at least almost nothing is believed to be true from purely logical reasons.
[/quote] (Eyes squinting and navel puckered) ffffffffffaith cough cough cough. LOL!! Come on spit it out man It won’t hurt that bad.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:<<< Ok I’ll start with this. Everything everyone holds to be true that is not simply some synthetic statement or groups of them, is at least partially believed from tradition or emotion. Nothing or at least almost nothing is believed to be true from purely logical reasons.
[/quote] (Eyes squinting and navel puckered) ffffffffffaith cough cough cough. LOL!! Come on spit it out man It won’t hurt that bad.
[/quote]
Who doesn’t understand this? In a naturalistic view of the world you are at the very least assuming your perceptions to be a true and accurate reflection of the world. You are taking it on faith. There is usually more faith involved since not everyone who has a naturalistic view has completed experiments they have observed for every principle they believe to be true. This is akin to the solely Sunday churchgoer who hasn’t made much of a study of the bible or other religious texts. Both sets are going with a trusted authority. Taking things to be true on faith. Both sets of people could either do all the experiments or engage in a detailed study of the bible , but since we live in the real world they are going to go with trusted authorities on both things. But this isn’t the sort of faith you are talking about.
Baseline the naturalistic view has a faith that the senses perceive the truth of the universe. I don’t want to get bogged down in quibbling about what about disease and drugs so lets all assume the perceptions are not altered as well.
I am just going to stick with Christian but you can fill in other religious texts or divine inspiration or drug addled meandering in its place. So in your view the bible presents the truth of the universe(I am not trying to lay any kind of trap with this about linguistic contradictions or literal versus metaphoric)…but the bible presents the truth of the universe.
Both views require faith. One in one’s own senses and logic. The other in divine inspiration or texts.
This is why when you fill a whole page with quotes from the bible that attempt to prove the bible to be true it won’t convince anyone with a naturalistic view. They have rejected the bible is true as a premise. They have no faith in it. Quoting from it is meaningless babble to them.
This is why as well the religious person won’t be convinced the naturalistic view is correct. They don’t share the same faith that perceptions of the world are accurate and inclusive.
There are a lot of reasons I think the naturalistic view is better the main one being the ability to admit error and seek correction and I would assert its true, but sure its based on faith and emotion just like everything else everyone believes to be true.
So you seem to take a view that for something to be knowledge it has to be infallible. I don’t think this but I’m not going to bog this part down either. If you hold this view then the only things that are infallibly known are things that are synthetic systems…like arithmetic and they are only known if they are not equated to physical objects…and synthetic analytic statements. The existence or non existence of god is not in this category of things.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So I listened to his song and while you like the message zomg the song. Why can’t he bring it like this.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
All men can be justified and saved if they accept Christ’s sacrifice, give their lives to God and live in faith. It’s clear that not all men have, it seems that many today have no intention of doing so as well. It doesn’t mean it’s not available, it means, by their own will they reject God. Salvation is available to all men to either accept or reject.[/quote]
I’m curious how this applies to a brown person born in a Muslim country? It would no more occur to him/her, by heritage and other influences, to convert or otherwise accept Jesus as his/her savior than it would likely occur to you to convert to a religion not of your land or heritage.
Would you deny that a child raised in a Catholic household is likely to remain Catholic as an adult? And so forth for other religions or denominations?[/quote]
I can answer this in virtually the same way since you want to bring in other faiths. God’s Grace is freely given by God to all men. It can be accepted or rejected. Rejection can take many forms including a farce of acceptance. If a Muslim leads a good life, loves God and his neighbor as he is called to do, and is of good will, then he is as acceptable to God as anybody else.
If he does evil, kills people, blows up cafes or what not that is typically attributed to them, then he has to answer for it. However, this supposed “Arab Spring” gives me hope that they will reject the evil that has permeated there faith at such a large level.
I differ to Act 10:34 which says this:
So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”
(Acts 10:34-35 ESV)
[quote]Cortes wrote:
There’s a lot more to it than this, but Catholic doctrine states that those not made aware of Christ (this would cover those raised to believe that “there is no God but Allah”) will be judged on their own merit. In fact, Catholics actually have it hard, as once we are no longer “ignorant,” we are responsible for following all of the rules, and a lot of them are not easy. [/quote]
Correct, those elected to be given the word and choose to accept it, have a greater responsibility and greater culpability. We lack then, the gift of ignorance.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:<<< As well I don’t think they are readily seen as true by everyone. >>>[/quote]Actually they’re not readily seen as true by anyone until raised from death to life.
[/quote]
So you are left framing a deductive argument based on premises that are of dubious truth. Be careful or soon we will have Trib’s paradox to add to Moore’s. :)[/quote]No. Every argument, of any kind, indeed any fragment of actual reality of any kind, whether held by me or you or anyone else, is based on the only premise that’s true at all. I know with absolute certainty that 2+2=4. It’s 4 when I say it, it’s 4 when you say it and it’s 4 if Adolf Hitler says it. It was 4 from all eternity and it will be 4 one trillion years from now. It’s 4 in Detroit, it’s 4 in Swaziland and it’s 4 in the most shadowy distant reaches of the mind numbingly vast universe. It’s 4 because the infinite intellect that is almighty God designed and decreed it that way. You have not and CANNOT ever tell me why 2+2=4 to you with certainty on any basis that excludes faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the ancient of days who is Himself the ultimate definition of absolutely everything.
Elder Forlife, who denies the gospel outright, before he so unceremoniously abandoned me here, was doing a first rate job of proving with utter certainty the utter uncertainty of his own intellectual foundations and yours. I would pay money to see Elder Forlife choke Bodyguard out with his own epistemology because I believe it would be useful to the God I love and serve. Sigh, he was savin me so much work. There were times that for pages I didn’t say a thing because he was doin such a bang up job at demonstrating that without my God his unbelief and uncertainty in anything was all that was left. Of course from his standpoint of autonomy, which is also yours and also that of the Catholics and even Armininian protestants, he is absolutely correct. He was doin God’s work without even tryin, but then again everybody’s doin that anyway =]
[/quote]
As my friend Pat put it so poignantly, unless you know everything, you cannot be certain of anything.
It is easy to see the ignorance in others, and so very hard to see the ignorance in yourself.
You and I share the same epistemology, with one glaring difference. Your entire belief system is founded on the feeble, unprovable assumption that your god is real. If that assumption fails, all of your beliefs fail along with it, and you are left as ignorant as the rest of us. You have faith that the assumption is valid, but you do not and cannot know that it is valid, else it wouldn’t be faith.
You do not know everything, so you cannot know anything, including knowing that an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being actually exists.
Admitting your ignorance takes tremendous courage. It is frightening to face the prospect of your beliefs being based on fiction rather than fact. If you have spent many years aligning your life with those beliefs, imagine how difficult it would be to disentrench yourself, and honestly consider that you could be wrong. You are in good company. The vast majority of people similarly stay entrenched in their own beliefs, to their dying day. Most never question, because most are too frightened to hear the answer.
The good news is that there really is light, life, and joy at the other end of that long, dark tunnel. It’s a difficult journey, but it is so worth it in the end.
[/quote]
I am not certain in knowledge, I am certain in faith. It is huge difference in approach. You have to approach it with faith, it is how it was designed. Nobody will ever be certain by knowledge alone.
I can prove that something lies beyond that must exist. I can infer that it must be God with high probability, but I cannot justify it in knowledge beyond that. For that it takes faith. And there are two types of people, those who embrace it and those who reject it.
My trust in what I cannot prove has been justified to me, many times over.
I wish you had the same experience, but then I question, would it be enough, or would you reject it anyway?
[quote]pat wrote:<<< the gift of ignorance.[/quote]The gift of ignorance? Did you really just say this? Ignorance is a gift? You need to learn to study a bible Pat. Peter goes on there in Acts to clearly explain that he is talking about “preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ” and that he had received personal revelation that this good news was for the gentiles as well, called “the nations” everywhere in the old testament. You people are really sumthin else. Cornelius, a Roman citizen and gentile, sends for Peter who comes there in response, to preach the gospel to this man so he can be saved and you cite one mangled verse in that story as alleging to somehow prove that Christ hating idolatrous muslims who do their best will be saved?
Guess we better keep Jesus to ourselves lest by our obedience to His command to preach His gospel everywhere we rob men of their blessed gift of ignorance. The devil just laughs hysterically with tears rolling down his cheeks that he can have people claiming the name of the spotless Lamb of God helping him damn the souls of men. No wonder the Catholic “church” is so powerless and pathetic. You have a false crippled christ, a cosmic sugar daddy who can’t save anybody let alone well meaning heathen.
Now Bodyguard will go and take a look at the 10th chapter of the acts of the apostles and come away saying “well if the bible teaches somewhere that there are people who never hear of Jesus but who fear God and do what is right and are acceptable to him thus attaining salvation, it ain’t there”. In fact it’s nowhere and the exact diametric opposite is taught everywhere. This is why systematic theology is so important and why it’s avoided like the plague by Catholics.
[quote]groo wrote:<<< Who doesn’t understand this? >>>[/quote]I forgot you haven’t been here that long =] [quote]groo wrote:<<< In a naturalistic view of the world you are at the very least assuming your perceptions to be a true and accurate reflection of the world. You are taking it on faith. >>>[/quote]Indeed. And my respectometer begins twitching upward here. [quote]groo wrote:<<< There is usually more faith involved since not everyone who has a naturalistic view has completed experiments they have observed for every principle they believe to be true. This is akin to the solely Sunday churchgoer who hasn’t made much of a study of the bible or other religious texts. Both sets are going with a trusted authority. Taking things to be true on faith. Both sets of people could either do all the experiments or engage in a detailed study of the bible , but since we live in the real world they are going to go with trusted authorities on both things. >>>[/quote]The way you are making this point is different than the way I would make it. The former are in sin for exalting science above the Word of God and the latter are in sin, actually greater sin, for claiming to love God while not loving His word. (an oversimplification I admit, but adequate for the point here.) [quote]groo wrote:<<< But this isn’t the sort of faith you are talking about. >>>[/quote]The sort of faith I’m talking about unconditionally assumes the truth, veracity and “rightness” and authority of it’s object to dictate how they shall live and interact in the world. All sane persons everywhere and in all cases absolutely practice this unconscious, unconditional trust in whatever it is to them that makes 2+2=4. In other words logic. Even if they have never even thought directly about it, which most haven’t. They are not faulted by God for depending on logic per se. He created them to do so. He faults them for using it in rebellion to and independently of Himself who is the source of both them and logic. [quote]groo wrote:<<< Baseline the naturalistic view has a faith that the senses perceive the truth of the universe. I don’t want to get bogged down in quibbling about what about disease and drugs so lets all assume the perceptions are not altered as well. >>>[/quote] Fair enough. That IS what the naturalistic view does though many will vociferously deny it has anything whatever to do with faith, and non standard senses are not relevant to our present discourse. (I could however build a huge analogy on that one =] ) [quote]groo wrote:<<< I am just going to stick with Christian but you can fill in other religious texts or divine inspiration or drug addled meandering in its place. >>>[/quote]No. No other God except the tri-personal exceptionlessly sovereign, all governing God who specially reveals Himself in the Christian scriptures is in any way able to support any part of the system of thought I am propounding. That’s why I don’t put much stock in the traditional logical “proofs” like the cosmological argument. They demonstrate the possible existence of any god in general and the actual existence of no god in particular and that in glaring vulnerability to all the autonomous criticisms I have heretofore been declaring. [quote]groo wrote:<<< So in your view the bible presents the truth of the universe (I am not trying to lay any kind of trap with this about linguistic contradictions or literal versus metaphoric)…but the bible presents the truth of the universe. >>>[/quote] I believe that every single possible and actual object of knowledge in all of the universe, but especially man, unavoidably and conclusively reveals the God of the bible to absolutely every man, woman and child ever to exist on the face of this planet. The bible is God’s special or specific revelation of Himself as opposed to His natural or common revelation that the whole of creation brightly exudes. It’s all about Him. Everything and everyone is all about Him. Christians love that because they love Him and unbelievers hate that because they love themselves. [quote]groo wrote:<<< Both views require faith. One in one’s own senses and logic. The other in divine inspiration or texts. >>>[/quote] Two HALLELUJAH worthy bullseyes from the same guy and the respectometer climbs a bit more. Not stated precisely the way I would, but close enough. [quote]groo wrote:<<< This is why when you fill a whole page with quotes from the bible that attempt to prove the bible to be true it won’t convince anyone with a naturalistic view. They have rejected the bible is true as a premise. They have no faith in it. Quoting from it is meaningless babble to them. >>>[/quote] If you look back over those posts you will see that I am almost always addressing someone who says they believe the bible. Also, I am saying what I BELIEVE and why. Of course I know that 99.9% of everybody that reads it isn’t going to like it. However God tells me through the prophet Isaiah (55:11) “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” His words have power even in the mouths of His people. Jesus taught us this (rightly understood which is not always the case). Something I say may be used by Him to save one (or more) of His elect. A thing I would be most unspeakably joyous about and may not ever find about in this life. Maybe not. My job is to be faithful. (sometimes I blow it and have to repent) He does the rest. [quote]groo wrote:<<< This is why as well the religious person won’t be convinced the naturalistic view is correct. >>>[/quote] “Religious” people can be convinced of anything, like the naturalistic idea that macro human evolution is in any way compatible with the account God Himself reveals of the beginning of His creation. Oh they’ll deny it’s naturalistic and say that’s how God did it, but that’s not what God says. Unless you have a church that is authorized to revise what God says as history rolls along. Oh they’ll deny that too, but even self proclaimed unbelievers can read the clear statements of scripture in many cases and come away with their eyebrows scrunched saying "hmmmm… that jist ain’t what that says. Unless language loses all ability to accurately convey thought in your convoluted system of “religion”. [quote]groo wrote:<<< They don’t share the same faith that perceptions of the world are accurate and inclusive. >>>[/quote] The bible teaches a very sharp two edged sword in regard to this point. On one hand unbelievers absolutely DO see the world accurately as the direct creation of the one true God as Romans 1 verses 18 and following makes crystal clear. On the other hand “<<< a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) [quote]groo wrote:<<< There are a lot of reasons I think the naturalistic view is better the main one being the ability to admit error and seek correction and I would assert its true, but sure its based on faith and emotion just like everything else everyone believes to be true. >>>[/quote]OK. Like I said. You have a goodly dose of the common grace of God.(a magnificent doctrine BTW, talk about justice and mercy) Your honesty (on one hand, just like Elder Forlife =] ) is to be commended. [quote]groo wrote:<<< So you seem to take a view that for something to be knowledge it has to be infallible. >>>[/quote]Nope. I take the view that for something to be knowledge it must be certain and for anything to be certain everything must be anchored somewhere in infallibility which is only possible in a God who has designed and decreed absolutely everything or else he may be like us surprised by something external to Himself and there goes His certainty AND ours. But have no fear my friend. We have revealed in the entire universe generally as well as in the pages of the Holy Bible proclaimed just such a God as I have been presently describing. All praise be to His exalted holy name!!! [quote]groo wrote:<<< I don’t think this >>>[/quote] Ohhhhhh yes you do =] Jist think a little more. [quote]groo wrote:<<< If you hold this view then the only things that are infallibly known are things that are synthetic systems…like arithmetic and they are only known if they are not equated to physical objects…and synthetic analytic statements. The existence or non existence of god is not in this category of things. [/quote] ALL things are infallibly known by God and NO things are infallibly known by me in myself. I access God’s own infallible knowledge by faith in which I am given the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:16). I am absolutely certain that 2+2=4 because I am absolutely certain that God is absolutely certain that 2+2=4.
I believe in the laws of logic and non contradiction because I believe they reflect the comprehensively sovereign infallible mind of the triumphant conquering King of all that is. Logic belongs to God. It’s His. I Enthusiastically embrace that with everything I am. If by His grace you ever do the same? Everything you ever experience. From a starry night to a stubbed toe. From a traffic jam to the silence of midnight, but most especially yourself. With all of your talents, tragedies, joys and heartbreaks will take on a whole new breathtaking meaning as you find yourself increasingly living for Him first and others second. Others who will notice the change in you and some will most decidedly NOT like it.
Anyway, I’m tired. Good night. You too Pat. If you could only understand how well my wishes are for you man.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
All men can be justified and saved if they accept Christ’s sacrifice, give their lives to God and live in faith. It’s clear that not all men have, it seems that many today have no intention of doing so as well. It doesn’t mean it’s not available, it means, by their own will they reject God. Salvation is available to all men to either accept or reject.[/quote]
I’m curious how this applies to a brown person born in a Muslim country? It would no more occur to him/her, by heritage and other influences, to convert or otherwise accept Jesus as his/her savior than it would likely occur to you to convert to a religion not of your land or heritage.
Would you deny that a child raised in a Catholic household is likely to remain Catholic as an adult? And so forth for other religions or denominations?[/quote]
I can answer this in virtually the same way since you want to bring in other faiths. God’s Grace is freely given by God to all men. It can be accepted or rejected. Rejection can take many forms including a farce of acceptance. If a Muslim leads a good life, loves God and his neighbor as he is called to do, and is of good will, then he is as acceptable to God as anybody else.
If he does evil, kills people, blows up cafes or what not that is typically attributed to them, then he has to answer for it. However, this supposed “Arab Spring” gives me hope that they will reject the evil that has permeated there faith at such a large level.
I differ to Act 10:34 which says this:
So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”
(Acts 10:34-35 ESV)[/quote]
And what happened to salvation only thru Jesus? Are you stating that good Allah fearing Muslims are going to heaven?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:<<< As well I don’t think they are readily seen as true by everyone. >>>[/quote]Actually they’re not readily seen as true by anyone until raised from death to life.
[/quote]
So you are left framing a deductive argument based on premises that are of dubious truth. Be careful or soon we will have Trib’s paradox to add to Moore’s. :)[/quote]No. Every argument, of any kind, indeed any fragment of actual reality of any kind, whether held by me or you or anyone else, is based on the only premise that’s true at all. I know with absolute certainty that 2+2=4. It’s 4 when I say it, it’s 4 when you say it and it’s 4 if Adolf Hitler says it. It was 4 from all eternity and it will be 4 one trillion years from now. It’s 4 in Detroit, it’s 4 in Swaziland and it’s 4 in the most shadowy distant reaches of the mind numbingly vast universe. It’s 4 because the infinite intellect that is almighty God designed and decreed it that way. You have not and CANNOT ever tell me why 2+2=4 to you with certainty on any basis that excludes faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the ancient of days who is Himself the ultimate definition of absolutely everything.
Elder Forlife, who denies the gospel outright, before he so unceremoniously abandoned me here, was doing a first rate job of proving with utter certainty the utter uncertainty of his own intellectual foundations and yours. I would pay money to see Elder Forlife choke Bodyguard out with his own epistemology because I believe it would be useful to the God I love and serve. Sigh, he was savin me so much work. There were times that for pages I didn’t say a thing because he was doin such a bang up job at demonstrating that without my God his unbelief and uncertainty in anything was all that was left. Of course from his standpoint of autonomy, which is also yours and also that of the Catholics and even Armininian protestants, he is absolutely correct. He was doin God’s work without even tryin, but then again everybody’s doin that anyway =]
[/quote]
As my friend Pat put it so poignantly, unless you know everything, you cannot be certain of anything.
It is easy to see the ignorance in others, and so very hard to see the ignorance in yourself.
You and I share the same epistemology, with one glaring difference. Your entire belief system is founded on the feeble, unprovable assumption that your god is real. If that assumption fails, all of your beliefs fail along with it, and you are left as ignorant as the rest of us. You have faith that the assumption is valid, but you do not and cannot know that it is valid, else it wouldn’t be faith.
You do not know everything, so you cannot know anything, including knowing that an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being actually exists.
Admitting your ignorance takes tremendous courage. It is frightening to face the prospect of your beliefs being based on fiction rather than fact. If you have spent many years aligning your life with those beliefs, imagine how difficult it would be to disentrench yourself, and honestly consider that you could be wrong. You are in good company. The vast majority of people similarly stay entrenched in their own beliefs, to their dying day. Most never question, because most are too frightened to hear the answer.
The good news is that there really is light, life, and joy at the other end of that long, dark tunnel. It’s a difficult journey, but it is so worth it in the end.
[/quote]
I am not certain in knowledge, I am certain in faith. It is huge difference in approach. You have to approach it with faith, it is how it was designed. Nobody will ever be certain by knowledge alone.
I can prove that something lies beyond that must exist. I can infer that it must be God with high probability, but I cannot justify it in knowledge beyond that. For that it takes faith. And there are two types of people, those who embrace it and those who reject it.
My trust in what I cannot prove has been justified to me, many times over.
I wish you had the same experience, but then I question, would it be enough, or would you reject it anyway?[/quote]
I’m truly baffled by your “reasoning” here. I get “faith”.
But on the one hand, you dismiss knowledge and the ability to be certain of anything, yet on the other hand, you hold so tightly to the Cosmological Argument (your baby) which is based upon premises that are rooted in our limited knowledge - the same knowledge you dismiss in favor of faith!
If that’s not circular, I don’t know what is.
You cannot, and have not, “proven” that something lies beyond that must exist. You cannot infer it must be God with “high probability”. You cannot do so for the very reasons you state you rely upon faith.
“I am not certain in knowledge”.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:<<< Who doesn’t understand this? >>>[/quote]I forgot you haven’t been here that long =] [quote]groo wrote:<<< In a naturalistic view of the world you are at the very least assuming your perceptions to be a true and accurate reflection of the world. You are taking it on faith. >>>[/quote]Indeed. And my respectometer begins twitching upward here. [quote]groo wrote:<<< There is usually more faith involved since not everyone who has a naturalistic view has completed experiments they have observed for every principle they believe to be true. This is akin to the solely Sunday churchgoer who hasn’t made much of a study of the bible or other religious texts. Both sets are going with a trusted authority. Taking things to be true on faith. Both sets of people could either do all the experiments or engage in a detailed study of the bible , but since we live in the real world they are going to go with trusted authorities on both things. >>>[/quote]The way you are making this point is different than the way I would make it. The former are in sin for exalting science above the Word of God and the latter are in sin, actually greater sin, for claiming to love God while not loving His word. (an oversimplification I admit, but adequate for the point here.) [quote]groo wrote:<<< But this isn’t the sort of faith you are talking about. >>>[/quote]The sort of faith I’m talking about unconditionally assumes the truth, veracity and “rightness” and authority of it’s object to dictate how they shall live and interact in the world. All sane persons everywhere and in all cases absolutely practice this unconscious, unconditional trust in whatever it is to them that makes 2+2=4. In other words logic. Even if they have never even thought directly about it, which most haven’t. They are not faulted by God for depending on logic per se. He created them to do so. He faults them for using it in rebellion to and independently of Himself who is the source of both them and logic. [quote]groo wrote:<<< Baseline the naturalistic view has a faith that the senses perceive the truth of the universe. I don’t want to get bogged down in quibbling about what about disease and drugs so lets all assume the perceptions are not altered as well. >>>[/quote] Fair enough. That IS what the naturalistic view does though many will vociferously deny it has anything whatever to do with faith, and non standard senses are not relevant to our present discourse. (I could however build a huge analogy on that one =] ) [quote]groo wrote:<<< I am just going to stick with Christian but you can fill in other religious texts or divine inspiration or drug addled meandering in its place. >>>[/quote]No. No other God except the tri-personal exceptionlessly sovereign, all governing God who specially reveals Himself in the Christian scriptures is in any way able to support any part of the system of thought I am propounding. That’s why I don’t put much stock in the traditional logical “proofs” like the cosmological argument. They demonstrate the possible existence of any god in general and the actual existence of no god in particular and that in glaring vulnerability to all the autonomous criticisms I have heretofore been declaring. [quote]groo wrote:<<< So in your view the bible presents the truth of the universe (I am not trying to lay any kind of trap with this about linguistic contradictions or literal versus metaphoric)…but the bible presents the truth of the universe. >>>[/quote] I believe that every single possible and actual object of knowledge in all of the universe, but especially man, unavoidably and conclusively reveals the God of the bible to absolutely every man, woman and child ever to exist on the face of this planet. The bible is God’s special or specific revelation of Himself as opposed to His natural or common revelation that the whole of creation brightly exudes. It’s all about Him. Everything and everyone is all about Him. Christians love that because they love Him and unbelievers hate that because they love themselves. [quote]groo wrote:<<< Both views require faith. One in one’s own senses and logic. The other in divine inspiration or texts. >>>[/quote] Two HALLELUJAH worthy bullseyes from the same guy and the respectometer climbs a bit more. Not stated precisely the way I would, but close enough. [quote]groo wrote:<<< This is why when you fill a whole page with quotes from the bible that attempt to prove the bible to be true it won’t convince anyone with a naturalistic view. They have rejected the bible is true as a premise. They have no faith in it. Quoting from it is meaningless babble to them. >>>[/quote] If you look back over those posts you will see that I am almost always addressing someone who says they believe the bible. Also, I am saying what I BELIEVE and why. Of course I know that 99.9% of everybody that reads it isn’t going to like it. However God tells me through the prophet Isaiah (55:11) “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” His words have power even in the mouths of His people. Jesus taught us this (rightly understood which is not always the case). Something I say may be used by Him to save one (or more) of His elect. A thing I would be most unspeakably joyous about and may not ever find about in this life. Maybe not. My job is to be faithful. (sometimes I blow it and have to repent) He does the rest. [quote]groo wrote:<<< This is why as well the religious person won’t be convinced the naturalistic view is correct. >>>[/quote] “Religious” people can be convinced of anything, like the naturalistic idea that macro human evolution is in any way compatible with the account God Himself reveals of the beginning of His creation. Oh they’ll deny it’s naturalistic and say that’s how God did it, but that’s not what God says. Unless you have a church that is authorized to revise what God says as history rolls along. Oh they’ll deny that too, but even self proclaimed unbelievers can read the clear statements of scripture in many cases and come away with their eyebrows scrunched saying "hmmmm… that jist ain’t what that says. Unless language loses all ability to accurately convey thought in your convoluted system of “religion”. [quote]groo wrote:<<< They don’t share the same faith that perceptions of the world are accurate and inclusive. >>>[/quote] The bible teaches a very sharp two edged sword in regard to this point. On one hand unbelievers absolutely DO see the world accurately as the direct creation of the one true God as Romans 1 verses 18 and following makes crystal clear. On the other hand “<<< a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) [quote]groo wrote:<<< There are a lot of reasons I think the naturalistic view is better the main one being the ability to admit error and seek correction and I would assert its true, but sure its based on faith and emotion just like everything else everyone believes to be true. >>>[/quote]OK. Like I said. You have a goodly dose of the common grace of God.(a magnificent doctrine BTW, talk about justice and mercy) Your honesty (on one hand, just like Elder Forlife =] ) is to be commended. [quote]groo wrote:<<< So you seem to take a view that for something to be knowledge it has to be infallible. >>>[/quote]Nope. I take the view that for something to be knowledge it must be certain and for anything to be certain everything must be anchored somewhere in infallibility which is only possible in a God who has designed and decreed absolutely everything or else he may be like us surprised by something external to Himself and there goes His certainty AND ours. But have no fear my friend. We have revealed in the entire universe generally as well as in the pages of the Holy Bible proclaimed just such a God as I have been presently describing. All praise be to His exalted holy name!!! [quote]groo wrote:<<< I don’t think this >>>[/quote] Ohhhhhh yes you do =] Jist think a little more. [quote]groo wrote:<<< If you hold this view then the only things that are infallibly known are things that are synthetic systems…like arithmetic and they are only known if they are not equated to physical objects…and synthetic analytic statements. The existence or non existence of god is not in this category of things. [/quote] ALL things are infallibly known by God and NO things are infallibly known by me in myself. I access God’s own infallible knowledge by faith in which I am given the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:16). I am absolutely certain that 2+2=4 because I am absolutely certain that God is absolutely certain that 2+2=4.
I believe in the laws of logic and non contradiction because I believe they reflect the comprehensively sovereign infallible mind of the triumphant conquering King of all that is. Logic belongs to God. It’s His. I Enthusiastically embrace that with everything I am. If by His grace you ever do the same? Everything you ever experience. From a starry night to a stubbed toe. From a traffic jam to the silence of midnight, but most especially yourself. With all of your talents, tragedies, joys and heartbreaks will take on a whole new breathtaking meaning as you find yourself increasingly living for Him first and others second. Others who will notice the change in you and some will most decidedly NOT like it.
Anyway, I’m tired. Good night. You too Pat. If you could only understand how well my wishes are for you man.
[/quote]
This is exactly the kind of nonsense that makes PWI inhospitable - the chop and reply, among other things. Now how in the world is this person supposed to reply to you? Why can’t you just post a reply to his points? Why the chop? If you’re well-intentioned, stop stifling give and take with this chopped post nonsense. Is he now supposed to quote/unquote a dozen times and hope it post correctly to rebut or reply to you?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:<<< As well I don’t think they are readily seen as true by everyone. >>>[/quote]Actually they’re not readily seen as true by anyone until raised from death to life.
[/quote]
So you are left framing a deductive argument based on premises that are of dubious truth. Be careful or soon we will have Trib’s paradox to add to Moore’s. :)[/quote]No. Every argument, of any kind, indeed any fragment of actual reality of any kind, whether held by me or you or anyone else, is based on the only premise that’s true at all. I know with absolute certainty that 2+2=4. It’s 4 when I say it, it’s 4 when you say it and it’s 4 if Adolf Hitler says it. It was 4 from all eternity and it will be 4 one trillion years from now. It’s 4 in Detroit, it’s 4 in Swaziland and it’s 4 in the most shadowy distant reaches of the mind numbingly vast universe. It’s 4 because the infinite intellect that is almighty God designed and decreed it that way. You have not and CANNOT ever tell me why 2+2=4 to you with certainty on any basis that excludes faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the ancient of days who is Himself the ultimate definition of absolutely everything.
Elder Forlife, who denies the gospel outright, before he so unceremoniously abandoned me here, was doing a first rate job of proving with utter certainty the utter uncertainty of his own intellectual foundations and yours. I would pay money to see Elder Forlife choke Bodyguard out with his own epistemology because I believe it would be useful to the God I love and serve. Sigh, he was savin me so much work. There were times that for pages I didn’t say a thing because he was doin such a bang up job at demonstrating that without my God his unbelief and uncertainty in anything was all that was left. Of course from his standpoint of autonomy, which is also yours and also that of the Catholics and even Armininian protestants, he is absolutely correct. He was doin God’s work without even tryin, but then again everybody’s doin that anyway =]
[/quote]
As my friend Pat put it so poignantly, unless you know everything, you cannot be certain of anything.
It is easy to see the ignorance in others, and so very hard to see the ignorance in yourself.
You and I share the same epistemology, with one glaring difference. Your entire belief system is founded on the feeble, unprovable assumption that your god is real. If that assumption fails, all of your beliefs fail along with it, and you are left as ignorant as the rest of us. You have faith that the assumption is valid, but you do not and cannot know that it is valid, else it wouldn’t be faith.
You do not know everything, so you cannot know anything, including knowing that an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being actually exists.
Admitting your ignorance takes tremendous courage. It is frightening to face the prospect of your beliefs being based on fiction rather than fact. If you have spent many years aligning your life with those beliefs, imagine how difficult it would be to disentrench yourself, and honestly consider that you could be wrong. You are in good company. The vast majority of people similarly stay entrenched in their own beliefs, to their dying day. Most never question, because most are too frightened to hear the answer.
The good news is that there really is light, life, and joy at the other end of that long, dark tunnel. It’s a difficult journey, but it is so worth it in the end.
[/quote]
I am not certain in knowledge, I am certain in faith. It is huge difference in approach. You have to approach it with faith, it is how it was designed. Nobody will ever be certain by knowledge alone.
I can prove that something lies beyond that must exist. I can infer that it must be God with high probability, but I cannot justify it in knowledge beyond that. For that it takes faith. And there are two types of people, those who embrace it and those who reject it.
My trust in what I cannot prove has been justified to me, many times over.
I wish you had the same experience, but then I question, would it be enough, or would you reject it anyway?[/quote]
I’m truly baffled by your “reasoning” here. I get “faith”.
[/quote]
There’s a shock, you now join Tirib on my "Completely ignore your existence list. I will not read nor respond to you anymore. While Tirib is just disingenuous and dishonest, you are to dumb, rude, and disingenuous to have a discussion of any substance with. I am with sloth, your too small a person even for a forum, this has been a long time coming. You can reply if you want to, I won’t read it. Good riddance…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:<<< As well I don’t think they are readily seen as true by everyone. >>>[/quote]Actually they’re not readily seen as true by anyone until raised from death to life.
[/quote]
So you are left framing a deductive argument based on premises that are of dubious truth. Be careful or soon we will have Trib’s paradox to add to Moore’s. :)[/quote]No. Every argument, of any kind, indeed any fragment of actual reality of any kind, whether held by me or you or anyone else, is based on the only premise that’s true at all. I know with absolute certainty that 2+2=4. It’s 4 when I say it, it’s 4 when you say it and it’s 4 if Adolf Hitler says it. It was 4 from all eternity and it will be 4 one trillion years from now. It’s 4 in Detroit, it’s 4 in Swaziland and it’s 4 in the most shadowy distant reaches of the mind numbingly vast universe. It’s 4 because the infinite intellect that is almighty God designed and decreed it that way. You have not and CANNOT ever tell me why 2+2=4 to you with certainty on any basis that excludes faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the ancient of days who is Himself the ultimate definition of absolutely everything.
Elder Forlife, who denies the gospel outright, before he so unceremoniously abandoned me here, was doing a first rate job of proving with utter certainty the utter uncertainty of his own intellectual foundations and yours. I would pay money to see Elder Forlife choke Bodyguard out with his own epistemology because I believe it would be useful to the God I love and serve. Sigh, he was savin me so much work. There were times that for pages I didn’t say a thing because he was doin such a bang up job at demonstrating that without my God his unbelief and uncertainty in anything was all that was left. Of course from his standpoint of autonomy, which is also yours and also that of the Catholics and even Armininian protestants, he is absolutely correct. He was doin God’s work without even tryin, but then again everybody’s doin that anyway =]
[/quote]
As my friend Pat put it so poignantly, unless you know everything, you cannot be certain of anything.
It is easy to see the ignorance in others, and so very hard to see the ignorance in yourself.
You and I share the same epistemology, with one glaring difference. Your entire belief system is founded on the feeble, unprovable assumption that your god is real. If that assumption fails, all of your beliefs fail along with it, and you are left as ignorant as the rest of us. You have faith that the assumption is valid, but you do not and cannot know that it is valid, else it wouldn’t be faith.
You do not know everything, so you cannot know anything, including knowing that an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural being actually exists.
Admitting your ignorance takes tremendous courage. It is frightening to face the prospect of your beliefs being based on fiction rather than fact. If you have spent many years aligning your life with those beliefs, imagine how difficult it would be to disentrench yourself, and honestly consider that you could be wrong. You are in good company. The vast majority of people similarly stay entrenched in their own beliefs, to their dying day. Most never question, because most are too frightened to hear the answer.
The good news is that there really is light, life, and joy at the other end of that long, dark tunnel. It’s a difficult journey, but it is so worth it in the end.
[/quote]
I am not certain in knowledge, I am certain in faith. It is huge difference in approach. You have to approach it with faith, it is how it was designed. Nobody will ever be certain by knowledge alone.
I can prove that something lies beyond that must exist. I can infer that it must be God with high probability, but I cannot justify it in knowledge beyond that. For that it takes faith. And there are two types of people, those who embrace it and those who reject it.
My trust in what I cannot prove has been justified to me, many times over.
I wish you had the same experience, but then I question, would it be enough, or would you reject it anyway?[/quote]
I’m truly baffled by your “reasoning” here. I get “faith”.
[/quote]
There’s a shock, you now join Tirib on my "Completely ignore your existence list. I will not read nor respond to you anymore. While Tirib is just disingenuous and dishonest, you are to dumb, rude, and disingenuous to have a discussion of any substance with. I am with sloth, your too small a person even for a forum, this has been a long time coming. You can reply if you want to, I won’t read it. Good riddance…[/quote]
Exactly what I expected, another ad hominem attack. When you’re cornered by your own words, you make personal attacks. If someone doesn’t agree with you, they’re “dumb”. If you are challenged, they’re “rude”. And I’ve called you intellectually disingenuous so many times I can’t help but to think you’re parroting now. You can hitch your wagon to Sloth - whoopty doo. What you can’t do apparently is resolve your circular reasoning about the basis for your faith as written further above (our knowledge is limited), while claiming you can know an absolute (God) with a high degree of certainty (based on the CA) which is based upon a premise that is rooted in our limited knowledge. Sounds like a circle to me.
A long time coming? You think really highly of yourself. Please don’t trouble yourself with the thought that I might care. The ignore button exists for a reason.
“Trib” is dishonest. Why? Because he doesn’t agree with you. LOL
I don’t agree with him either, but he sure sounds earnest to me.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< This is exactly the kind of nonsense that makes PWI inhospitable - the chop and reply, among other things. Now how in the world is this person supposed to reply to you? Why can’t you just post a reply to his points? Why the chop? If you’re well-intentioned, stop stifling give and take with this chopped post nonsense. Is he now supposed to quote/unquote a dozen times and hope it post correctly to rebut or reply to you?[/quote]That is a respectful point by point response, so edited to match my statements precisely to his point being responded to. It never occurred to me that anybody even could take this method in any other way. If you see dishonesty here somehow then… tough =] I don’t know what to say. I put a considerable amount of work into that post because I feel that this young man warrants it AND he gives me an opportunity to make and remake points I would like to anyway.
Why all this sniveling about me lately? You seem all nit picky like you think I stole your pop tarts or something.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< This is exactly the kind of nonsense that makes PWI inhospitable - the chop and reply, among other things. Now how in the world is this person supposed to reply to you? Why can’t you just post a reply to his points? Why the chop? If you’re well-intentioned, stop stifling give and take with this chopped post nonsense. Is he now supposed to quote/unquote a dozen times and hope it post correctly to rebut or reply to you?[/quote]That is a respectful point by point response, so edited to match my statements precisely to his point being responded to. It never occurred to me that anybody even could take this method in any other way. If you see dishonesty here somehow then… tough =] I don’t know what to say. I put a considerable amount of work into that post because I feel that this young man warrants it AND he gives me an opportunity to make and remake points I would like to anyway.
Why all this sniveling about me lately? You seem all nit picky like you think I stole your pop tarts or something.
[/quote]
Sir, I do not give one thought to you after I hit “submit”. The cut and chop reply is a favorite over here in PWI and it renders a subsequent reply difficult. You cut and chop. What is the reply supposed to be? Another painstaking cut and chop, quote/unquote, with the hope you get it right so it highlights correctly? Simply put, it stifles a good debate (assuming there is a good debate to be had here). You can make the same points with a simple reply.
I don’t eat pop tarts. For some reason, I think you do.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Sir, I do not give one thought to you after I hit “submit”. The cut and chop reply is a favorite over here in PWI and it renders a subsequent reply difficult. You cut and chop. What is the reply supposed to be? Another painstaking cut and chop, quote/unquote, with the hope you get it right so it highlights correctly? Simply put, it stifles a good debate (assuming there is a good debate to be had here). You can make the same points with a simple reply.
I don’t eat pop tarts. For some reason, I think you do.
[/quote]Well sir, I do give you even more than one thought after I hit “submit”. I don’t see my detailed responses as stifling anything though. If others disagree and agree with you I may reconsider. I can construct those posts. Others can too, (and do actually) or not if they so choose. So why again are you nit picking at me lately? I didn’t catch that answer =] Another thing I didn’t catch was any kind of substantive response to anything I say. You’ll no doubt respond with something about how ridiculous my positions are and not worth responding to. But somehow the form of my posts is worth responding to?
Oh yeah. I haven’t had a pop tart in like years, but I thought it would be mildly humorous. You must be too jolly already to be bothered with such frivolity. You oughta lighten up dude. Pop tarts ain’t that serious.
Unless of course they are autonomous pop tarts, then they are the unleashed instrument of hell.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Sir, I do not give one thought to you after I hit “submit”. The cut and chop reply is a favorite over here in PWI and it renders a subsequent reply difficult. You cut and chop. What is the reply supposed to be? Another painstaking cut and chop, quote/unquote, with the hope you get it right so it highlights correctly? Simply put, it stifles a good debate (assuming there is a good debate to be had here). You can make the same points with a simple reply.
I don’t eat pop tarts. For some reason, I think you do.
[/quote]Well sir, I do give you even more than one thought after I hit “submit”. I don’t see my detailed responses as stifling anything though. If others disagree and agree with you I may reconsider. I can construct those posts. Others can too, (and do actually) or not if they so choose. So why again are you nit picking at me lately? I didn’t catch that answer =] Another thing I didn’t catch was any kind of substantive response to anything I say. You’ll no doubt respond with something about how ridiculous my positions are and not worth responding to. But somehow the form of my posts is worth responding to?
Oh yeah. I haven’t had a pop tart in like years, but I thought it would be mildly humorous. You must be too jolly already to be bothered with such frivolity. You oughta lighten up dude. Pop tarts ain’t that serious.
Unless of course they are autonomous pop tarts, then they are the unleashed instrument of hell.
[/quote]
Let’s not quibble (an ironic statement in PWI I know). But to be clear:
Once you chop and reply, it’s difficult to further chop and reply and retort discrete points. Yes, it can be done, but it takes a lot of effort and after the 2nd time, it becomes ridiculous. In my opinion, it discourages the flow of debate/discussion and that is EXACTLY what some of the PWI cronies intend.
I don’t respond to you substantively, because I find your style of writing very onerous and your ultimate point to everything is complete submission t SCRIPTURE - I know you might ultimately say “God”, but your God is based upon your scripture. And my position is that I cannot, and will not, submit to scripture written and corrupted by man. In divorce circles, you and I have what is known as “irreconcilable differences”. So, there’s not much room for substantive discussion. I won’t change your mind or gain any concession, and you shall not with me either.
I don’t find your position “ridiculous”. I just find it disagreeable and emotionally and intellectually unappealing (“In” before you liken my intellect to my sinful autonomous self).
If you want to truly lighten up, have that pop tart you’ve been denying yourself for years 
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Once you chop and reply, it’s difficult to further chop and reply and retort discrete points. >>>[/quote]This is how I do it. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I cannot, and will not, submit to scripture written and corrupted by man. >>>[/quote]Excellent. Neither can I. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< you and I have what is known as “irreconcilable differences”. >>>[/quote] Absolutely true. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:So, there’s not much room for substantive discussion. >>>[/quote]Absolutely false [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I won’t change your mind or gain any concession, and you shall not with me either. >>>[/quote] I’m not tryin to change your mind. That’s the Catholic/Arminian method. I’m declaring the Word of the Lord. Only He can do the changing as He sees fit. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I don’t find your position “ridiculous”. I just find it disagreeable and emotionally and intellectually unappealing (“In” before you liken my intellect to my sinful autonomous self). >>>[/quote] You are a sinful autonomous man of which your intellect is a primary component in the broken image of your God that you still bear.[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< If you want to truly lighten up, have that pop tart you’ve been denying yourself for years [/quote]I love that kinda crap, but it is not good for my type 2 diabetes or the anabolic diet which I am in my sixth year of. Could be ok on load days, but I choose better stuff for the most part.
See, I just eliminate all but the immediate responses.If somebody really cares beyond that, they can look back at previous posts.