Religious Belief is Human Nature?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, no idea why you thought I believe time and space only exist inside your brain. I’ve never said or implied that.

On deductive logic, I already pointed out the 3 assumptions on which it is based. You never replied, maybe you missed my
post. The correctness of deductive logic, and the confidence we can place in it, are commensurate with the correctness of its underlying assumptions.

And please don’t argue again that deductive logic has no assumptions. It does:

  1. The Law of Identity

  2. The Law of the Excluded Middle

  3. The Law of Non-contradiction

The cosmological theory is a theory, not a fact.[/quote]

It’s a deductive argument which shows a fact…

Read and learn:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

You have to either attack the premises as false or prove that the conclusion does not follow. Causation is a fact. Simple math bears this out. If causation does not exist, then all science fall apart as well. All you have to do is prove one tiny instance where causation does not exist and the whole argument is wrong.
You’ve been tenacious as hell, but never been able to prove any part of the argument wrong.

Logic based on assumptions is inductive not deductive logic. It indicates probability not necessity. Deductive logic deals with necessity.[/quote]

Are you claiming that deductive logic doesn’t require the 3 assumptions that I noted? How many times have you stated these assumptions as facts in your arguments supporting the cosmological theory?[/quote]

Laws are established facts, theories are based on assumptions.[/quote]

Calling it a law doesn’t mean there are no underlying assumptions.

Are you aware that philosophers debate whether the 3 underlying assumptions are in fact true, and that there is some scientific evidence supporting this?

You’re acting as if these assumptions are known facts, when they are not.
[/quote]

What are the underlying ‘assumptions’?[/quote]

Identity, Excluded Middle, Non-Contradiction

They are assumptions, not irrefutable facts.
[/quote]

Laws are not assumptions, they are facts.
LAW → “(in philosophy, science, etc.)
a. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
b. a mathematical rule.”

#15.

Now what you stated is that the above ^ laws are based on assumptions, what are those assumptions?[/quote]

The assumption is that these underlying “laws” apply everywhere and under all conditions. There is good reason to believe they don’t, hence any conclusions contingent on them being true cannot be 100% proven to be true.[/quote]

Again, here is the definition of a law: a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.[/quote]

Which says nothing about my point that these 3 “laws” may not apply UNDER ALL CONDITIONS. Do you think Newton’s laws apply under all conditions? He may have thought so, but we’ve since learned that they don’t.
[/quote]

I never said, nor intimated ‘all conditions’.

302

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I haven’t actually gone into any of the bibles substance with you yet so I’m not sure what these “false assumptions” you’re talking about are. To me, it seems like you’re making the false assumption that I’m making false assumptions. For the record, I’ve read the bible, but if my impression of you holds true then this fact won’t matter because you’ll just claim I haven’t read it every time I back you into a corner.[/quote]

[Shortened for the benefit of all]

If you say the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only, then I based on what you said, I have no choice but to believe that you haven’t read it, because what you accuse is not true.
Now, if you do know it and wish to discuss one part or another, I am fine if you have issue with one part or another, but to say the whole thing is bullshit is to say you don’t know what you are talking about.

303

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
“We can’t know anything with perfect certitude, therefore I will ignore everything you say.”

It’s a cop out for the weak and the anti-intellectual.[/quote]Have no fear fellas. I can hang in there as long as God enables me. Here, I’ll try it yet again. Most gracious and mighty heavenly Father, please open somebody’s mind here.

Follow along please. I… (that’s me), am declaring it to be sin against the God of all creation to willfully live in ignorant uncertainty. Therefore, (that means in light of what I just said), I DO NOT believe that “We can’t know anything with perfect certitude”. YOU guys, (that’s people who are not me), believe that and are hence (again, in light of what has just been previously said) unreasonable (that is, without reason) in demanding that anyone have regard for anything you say.

Did ya catch that? I (that’s me again) HAVE perfect certitude (that is, the conviction of utterly settled truth) about EVERYTHING (that would be all things without exception). I hasten to add that this certitude is derivative (that means it doesn’t originate with me) from the God who is at all times and forever in contemporaneous (that means all at the same time) possession of EVERY (all without exception again) actual (that means what is) and possible (that means what could be) objects of knowledge (stuff that does or could exist).

You (not me again) have no reason to believe (that means hold as true) that 2+2=4 aside from really liking it to be that way. I do have such a reason. So please cease from accusing me of holding to uncertainty and thereby ignoring you. I’m ignoring you because YOU claim no certainty for anything so why should I, who lives ONLY by certainty, attempt to prove a God to you who you already are certain (oh yes you are) cannot exist? Even though you keep telling me how uncertain you are. However, yet one more time (sure it is) the god who designed you says that you KNOW with utter CERTAINTY that He DOES exist, that you are accountable to Him and that all this talk of uncertainty is simply a ruse employed to syllogistically escape said accountability. If NOTHING can be known then neither can He. Ahhh, now I’m safe and can go about doin whatever I want. [/quote]

So, you believe 2+2 can equal something else? Ok, I’ll bite, what?

You only ignore people when you don’t have the answers. You want raw honesty? That’s it. It also means that you are wasting your time in there discussions. We want to know more and know truth. If you already know everything, you’re wasting your time.

304

Pat, it’s almost impossible for 2 people who allegedly speak the same language to communicate less than do you and I, which to be perfectly honest is the reason I don’t answer you sometimes. I believe I will this time though.

No, 2+2 CANNOT equal anything except 4. Every sane person agrees on that. Here’s the point. Unbelievers have NO reason for believing it. Some of them have plainly owned that right here in these forums. That is the inescapable conclusion of someone declaring certainty an impossibility. Heck, elder forlife has his plastic helmet and sword and his stick horse galloping valiantly through the countryside slaying that foul and unclean foe certainty wherever it dares rear it’s ugly head.

But then they’ll turn right around and proclaim that this doesn’t mean they cannot have LEVELS of certainty distilled from evidence presented to their senses. This is nothing more than the very circular subjective feel good-ism that I am constantly accused of. Evidence processed uncertainly leads nowhere and as soon as certainty is claimed for some package of evidence the original position evaporates again.

The fully Christian position is that 2+2 does in fact equal 4 for everybody because everybody is created in the image of God. Since the fall into sin that image has attempted to operate in separation from the God who designed it. It is not however simply cut off from God in spiritual death, but is actively hostile toward Him. That’s why men will intellectually coerce themselves into absolutely ANY conclusion other than the only true one.

You hit the nail RIGHT on the head when you said someone would have to know EVERYTHING to be certain about ANYTHING. That was a positively brilliant statement. I mean that. Because as long as there exists even one unknown of any kind in any category it carries the potential to change what we know about everything else. Only exception-less comprehensive knowledge of absolutely everything, past, present and future provides certainty and thereby actual intelligibility to ANYthing, ANYwhere, ANYtime.

Only a universally non contingent God who governs absolutely everything can have such knowledge and hence such certainty. If He does not govern all then things occurring apart from Him introduce contingency in Him and we’re right back to the uncertainty we started with. No, we need an ALL-mighty, ALL knowing, ALL governing God for whom ALL things are eternally certain. The bible testifies of just such a God. I believe Him. Therefore 2+2 for me will always be 4 and that with the very non contingent certainty of God himself. NOT because I have this knowledge in myself. In myself I will never have any more knowledge or certainty than any other finite rebellious sinful man. But because I know by grace through faith that my Father God has this knowledge and certainty. What I cannot ever understand because of my creatureliness and finitude, I know He does and I love Him with all my heart for that.

I have been gloriously and mercifully freed from the bondage of death in sin and given the mind of Christ by the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit of the Lord most high? Nothing. Do you hear me. NOTHING could be more certain.

305

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Pat, it’s almost impossible for 2 people who allegedly speak the same language to communicate less than do you and I, which to be perfectly honest is the reason I don’t answer you sometimes. I believe I will this time though.

No, 2+2 CANNOT equal anything except 4. Every sane person agrees on that. Here’s the point. Unbelievers have NO reason for believing it. Some of them have plainly owned that right here in these forums. That is the inescapable conclusion of someone declaring certainty an impossibility. Heck, elder forlife has his plastic helmet and sword and his stick horse galloping valiantly through the countryside slaying that foul and unclean foe certainty wherever it dares rear it’s ugly head.

But then they’ll turn right around and proclaim that this doesn’t mean they cannot have LEVELS of certainty distilled from evidence presented to their senses. This is nothing more than the very circular subjective feel good-ism that I am constantly accused of. Evidence processed uncertainly leads nowhere and as soon as certainty is claimed for some package of evidence the original position evaporates again.

The fully Christian position is that 2+2 does in fact equal 4 for everybody because everybody is created in the image of God. Since the fall into sin that image has attempted to operate in separation from the God who designed it. It is not however simply cut off from God in spiritual death, but is actively hostile toward Him. That’s why men will intellectually coerce themselves into absolutely ANY conclusion other than the only true one.

You hit the nail RIGHT on the head when you said someone would have to know EVERYTHING to be certain about ANYTHING. That was a positively brilliant statement. I mean that. Because as long as there exists even one unknown of any kind in any category it carries the potential to change what we know about everything else. Only exception-less comprehensive knowledge of absolutely everything, past, present and future provides certainty and thereby actual intelligibility to ANYthing, ANYwhere, ANYtime.

Only a universally non contingent God who governs absolutely everything can have such knowledge and hence such certainty. If He does not govern all then things occurring apart from Him introduce contingency in Him and we’re right back to the uncertainty we started with. No, we need an ALL-mighty, ALL knowing, ALL governing God for whom ALL things are eternally certain. The bible testifies of just such a God. I believe Him. Therefore 2+2 for me will always be 4 and that with the very non contingent certainty of God himself. NOT because I have this knowledge in myself. In myself I will never have any more knowledge or certainty than any other finite rebellious sinful man. But because I know by grace through faith that my Father God has this knowledge and certainty. What I cannot ever understand because of my creatureliness and finitude, I know He does and I love Him with all my heart for that.

I have been gloriously and mercifully freed from the bondage of death in sin and given the mind of Christ by the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit of the Lord most high? Nothing. Do you hear me. NOTHING could be more certain. [/quote]

Since you don’t know EVERYTHING, you can’t be certain of ANYTHING, including your conviction that your god is real. That’s what you don’t get. You claim to know that your god is real, but by your own admission you CANNOT know that, since you don’t know EVERYTHING.

306

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, no idea why you thought I believe time and space only exist inside your brain. I’ve never said or implied that.

On deductive logic, I already pointed out the 3 assumptions on which it is based. You never replied, maybe you missed my
post. The correctness of deductive logic, and the confidence we can place in it, are commensurate with the correctness of its underlying assumptions.

And please don’t argue again that deductive logic has no assumptions. It does:

  1. The Law of Identity

  2. The Law of the Excluded Middle

  3. The Law of Non-contradiction

The cosmological theory is a theory, not a fact.[/quote]

It’s a deductive argument which shows a fact…

Read and learn:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

You have to either attack the premises as false or prove that the conclusion does not follow. Causation is a fact. Simple math bears this out. If causation does not exist, then all science fall apart as well. All you have to do is prove one tiny instance where causation does not exist and the whole argument is wrong.
You’ve been tenacious as hell, but never been able to prove any part of the argument wrong.

Logic based on assumptions is inductive not deductive logic. It indicates probability not necessity. Deductive logic deals with necessity.[/quote]

Are you claiming that deductive logic doesn’t require the 3 assumptions that I noted? How many times have you stated these assumptions as facts in your arguments supporting the cosmological theory?[/quote]

Laws are established facts, theories are based on assumptions.[/quote]

Calling it a law doesn’t mean there are no underlying assumptions.

Are you aware that philosophers debate whether the 3 underlying assumptions are in fact true, and that there is some scientific evidence supporting this?

You’re acting as if these assumptions are known facts, when they are not.
[/quote]

What are the underlying ‘assumptions’?[/quote]

Identity, Excluded Middle, Non-Contradiction

They are assumptions, not irrefutable facts.
[/quote]

Laws are not assumptions, they are facts.
LAW → “(in philosophy, science, etc.)
a. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
b. a mathematical rule.”

#15.

Now what you stated is that the above ^ laws are based on assumptions, what are those assumptions?[/quote]

The assumption is that these underlying “laws” apply everywhere and under all conditions. There is good reason to believe they don’t, hence any conclusions contingent on them being true cannot be 100% proven to be true.[/quote]

Again, here is the definition of a law: a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.[/quote]

Which says nothing about my point that these 3 “laws” may not apply UNDER ALL CONDITIONS. Do you think Newton’s laws apply under all conditions? He may have thought so, but we’ve since learned that they don’t.
[/quote]

I never said, nor intimated ‘all conditions’. [/quote]

If you can’t make definitive statements covering all conditions, you can’t make absolutist statements like “an infinite regress is impossible”. For all you know, an infinite regress is possible, under certain conditions.

307

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have to remember who I’m dealing with with you. When I ask God to open somebody’s mind I do not mean the open mindedness espoused by groovy post modern unbelievers. I want Him to open their minds TO HIM. You are absolutely correct though. By your definition nobody is less open minded than I am. I said that in the open mindedness thread a couple weeks ago. [/quote]

Classic confirmatory bias. You will twist anything to fit your preconceptions, and stubbornly refuse to admit that you could ever be wrong.

Contrary to what you claim, I admit that I could be wrong. It’s very possible that your god IS real. If so, he is an asshole, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t real. Of course, the gods of the multitudes of other religions could be real, and yours could be a fabrication of Calvin and his cadre of really smart men who studied the bible for 4 years.

I don’t know, and neither do you. The difference between us is that I’m willing to admit my ignorance and you are not.

308

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I haven’t actually gone into any of the bibles substance with you yet so I’m not sure what these “false assumptions” you’re talking about are. To me, it seems like you’re making the false assumption that I’m making false assumptions. For the record, I’ve read the bible, but if my impression of you holds true then this fact won’t matter because you’ll just claim I haven’t read it every time I back you into a corner.[/quote]

[Shortened for the benefit of all]

If you say the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only, then I based on what you said, I have no choice but to believe that you haven’t read it, because what you accuse is not true.
Now, if you do know it and wish to discuss one part or another, I am fine if you have issue with one part or another, but to say the whole thing is bullshit is to say you don’t know what you are talking about.[/quote]

Show me where I said “the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only”. You can’t, because I didn’t. What I DID say was “Your bible contains >THINGS< that are >PHYSICALLY<, historically and >LOGICALLY< impossible”. As you can see, I’ve highlighted everything in the quote that you’ve conveniently ignored in order to make me out to be some kind of irrational extremest.

So no, I haven’t forced you to assume anything. Nobody is twisting you’re arm, you’ve just failed to comprehend what I’m talking about (again).

If you want to go into specifics, then fine, let’s go into specifics.
Let’s start with something simple. According to the bible, is it okay to marry a non-believer?

309

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< It’s very possible that your god IS real. >>>[/quote]Yer lyin. The God I serve cannot be associated with possibility in any way, shape, manner or form. Possible gods are idols. THEE God, IS absoluteness and certainty themselves. He is the foundation of all that is. The source of everything that isn’t Him. It is not possible that He could possibly exist. It is IMpossible that He not exist. Your artificial open and high minded alleged intellectual neutrality is a lie. It is a declaration of war on your creator. Repent, believe His Word, beg His forgiveness, acknowledge your need of the blood and resurrection of His only begotten Son and He will forgive you as He has me and welcome you as His brother, bride and child. Wadda deal.

There is no neutral ground elder forlife. As Jesus Himself said [quote]“He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters”.[/quote] Matthew 12:30 Your smiling synthetic objectivity is an intolerable affront to His majesty. I will continue to pray that you will one day forsake it and become my brother. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< I don’t know, and neither do you. The difference between us is that I’m willing to admit my ignorance and you are not.[/quote]You DO know and so do I. The difference between us is that I know Him as merciful savior and Father, you know Him as offended king and judge. We both know Him as creator. Oh yes you do or He is a liar and heaven and earth will pass away, but not one Word of His can fail.

310

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< It’s very possible that your god IS real. >>>[/quote]Yer lyin. The God I serve cannot be associated with possibility in any way, shape, manner or form. Possible gods are idols. THEE God, IS absoluteness and certainty themselves. He is the foundation of all that is. The source of everything that isn’t Him. It is not possible that He could possibly exist. It is IMpossible that He not exist. Your artificial open and high minded alleged intellectual neutrality is a lie. It is a declaration of war on your creator. Repent, believe His Word, beg His forgiveness, acknowledge your need of the blood and resurrection of His only begotten Son and He will forgive you as He has me and welcome you as His brother, bride and child. Wadda deal.

There is no neutral ground elder forlife. As Jesus Himself said [quote]“He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters”.[/quote] Matthew 12:30 Your smiling synthetic objectivity is an intolerable affront to His majesty. I will continue to pray that you will one day forsake it and become my brother. [quote]forlife wrote:<<< I don’t know, and neither do you. The difference between us is that I’m willing to admit my ignorance and you are not.[/quote]You DO know and so do I. The difference between us is that I know Him as merciful savior and Father, you know Him as offended king and judge. We both know Him as creator. Oh yes you do or He is a liar and heaven and earth will pass away, but not one Word of His can fail.
[/quote]

You can insist your god is real until you’re blue in the face, but so do Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, and every other believer.

God has told THEM that He is the True and Living God.

Again I ask: Who is right and how are you supposed to know?

You claim to know, but so do they.

Accepting your god as real is denying the Mormon god as real. Accepting the Mormon god as real is denying the Catholic god as real. Accepting the Catholic god as real is denying the Muslim god as real. All believers threaten hellfire and damnation unless I accept THEIR god as the real god.

You’re no different from any of them. You offer nothing that they don’t also offer, and you threaten nothing that they don’t also threaten.

What is an honest agnostic to do?

311

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< What is an honest agnostic to do?[/quote]Confess to His creator that he is in fact DIShonest in using the supposed cover of false religious idolatry practiced by others to escape said creator’s authority.

312

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< What is an honest agnostic to do?[/quote]Confess to His creator that he is in fact DIShonest in using the supposed cover of false religious idolatry practiced by others to escape said creator’s authority.
[/quote]

Confess to my Creator, according to you, according to Mormons, according to Catholics, or according to Muslims?

All claim a different Creator, and all offer the same fervent assurance that theirs is REAL.

Why should I believe you over anyone else? Your words are as hollow as theirs.

313

Fine, my words are hollow, but for the last time. Catholics can’t be put in the same category as mormons or muslims.

314

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Fine, my words are hollow, but for the last time. Catholics can’t be put in the same category as mormons or muslims.[/quote]

They’re not in the same category. They’re in a unique category, each and every one. If Catholics are right, you, Mormons, and Muslims are wrong. And the same is true for scores of other mutually exclusive faiths.

Your gods are different, but your reasons for believing in that god are identical.

The only differentiating factor I can see is the degree of divine assholeness. Your god is up there, but he is better than some and worse than others.

315

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< They’re not in the same category. They’re in a unique category, each and every one. If Catholics are right, you, Mormons, and Muslims are wrong. And the same is true for scores of other mutually exclusive faiths >>>[/quote]Elder forilfe you are absolutely correct. My hat will have to spend a bit more time off in your direction. I am being totally sincere. They are indeed mutually exclusive. It’s a shame that a Christ denying unbeliever can see what professing Christians apparently cannot.

316

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< What is an honest agnostic to do?[/quote]Confess to His creator that he is in fact DIShonest in using the supposed cover of false religious idolatry practiced by others to escape said creator’s authority.
[/quote]

Confess to my Creator, according to you, according to Mormons, according to Catholics, or according to Muslims?

All claim a different Creator, and all offer the same fervent assurance that theirs is REAL.

Why should I believe you over anyone else? Your words are as hollow as theirs.[/quote]

Catholics, after all we do have the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. :wink:

317

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Fine, my words are hollow, but for the last time. Catholics can’t be put in the same category as mormons or muslims.[/quote]

They’re not in the same category. They’re in a unique category, each and every one. If Catholics are right, you, Mormons, and Muslims are wrong. And the same is true for scores of other mutually exclusive faiths.

Your gods are different, but your reasons for believing in that god are identical.

The only differentiating factor I can see is the degree of divine assholeness. Your god is up there, but he is better than some and worse than others.[/quote]

Well, if Catholics are right, then those other religions are partially correct when it comes to Salvific truth and therefore are partially in union with Catholics.

318

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Pat, it’s almost impossible for 2 people who allegedly speak the same language to communicate less than do you and I, which to be perfectly honest is the reason I don’t answer you sometimes. I believe I will this time though.

No, 2+2 CANNOT equal anything except 4. Every sane person agrees on that. Here’s the point. Unbelievers have NO reason for believing it. Some of them have plainly owned that right here in these forums. That is the inescapable conclusion of someone declaring certainty an impossibility. Heck, elder forlife has his plastic helmet and sword and his stick horse galloping valiantly through the countryside slaying that foul and unclean foe certainty wherever it dares rear it’s ugly head.

But then they’ll turn right around and proclaim that this doesn’t mean they cannot have LEVELS of certainty distilled from evidence presented to their senses. This is nothing more than the very circular subjective feel good-ism that I am constantly accused of. Evidence processed uncertainly leads nowhere and as soon as certainty is claimed for some package of evidence the original position evaporates again.

The fully Christian position is that 2+2 does in fact equal 4 for everybody because everybody is created in the image of God. Since the fall into sin that image has attempted to operate in separation from the God who designed it. It is not however simply cut off from God in spiritual death, but is actively hostile toward Him. That’s why men will intellectually coerce themselves into absolutely ANY conclusion other than the only true one.

You hit the nail RIGHT on the head when you said someone would have to know EVERYTHING to be certain about ANYTHING. That was a positively brilliant statement. I mean that. Because as long as there exists even one unknown of any kind in any category it carries the potential to change what we know about everything else. Only exception-less comprehensive knowledge of absolutely everything, past, present and future provides certainty and thereby actual intelligibility to ANYthing, ANYwhere, ANYtime.

Only a universally non contingent God who governs absolutely everything can have such knowledge and hence such certainty. If He does not govern all then things occurring apart from Him introduce contingency in Him and we’re right back to the uncertainty we started with. No, we need an ALL-mighty, ALL knowing, ALL governing God for whom ALL things are eternally certain. The bible testifies of just such a God. I believe Him. Therefore 2+2 for me will always be 4 and that with the very non contingent certainty of God himself. NOT because I have this knowledge in myself. In myself I will never have any more knowledge or certainty than any other finite rebellious sinful man. But because I know by grace through faith that my Father God has this knowledge and certainty. What I cannot ever understand because of my creatureliness and finitude, I know He does and I love Him with all my heart for that.

I have been gloriously and mercifully freed from the bondage of death in sin and given the mind of Christ by the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit of the Lord most high? Nothing. Do you hear me. NOTHING could be more certain. [/quote]

Well now we’re getting somewhere, and I appreciate you response.
I agree that logic is the way it is, because God designed it that way. So 2+2 does equal 4 until God decides it does not.

Now I disagree that ‘unbelievers’ are necessarily ignorant of all things because they dismiss the one true thing; indeed, the only thing you need to know, God himself…Approaching God in repentance and humility is the one true testimony and indeed all you need to know. That does not necessarily speak to their ignorance though.
Their are in fact very intelligent very wise and well behaved ‘non-believers’, speaking for my self, I think this is a symptom of grace, not a lack of desire, goodness, or whatever. I feel, that through faith and seeking Gad has given me the grace and the tools to know him better…According to St. Paul speak, I am elect. The word was given and I chose to receive. I asked for wisdom on matters of faith and I put in the work. But to have it is a gift, what non-believers lack is the gift.
Now, they make lack it because they choose, or because they didn’t get it for another reason. It not my place to judge why they don’t have said gifts.
This does not speak to their ignorance as much as it does to my and indeed your blessings.

Most of what I see in the non-believing contingent isn’t a lack of desire to know God, more that somehow their well of faith has been poisoned. It could have been bad parenting, deception by trust, bad pastors, faithful behaving badly, etc. Bottom line, most of the time a non-belief is due to the folly of man.
My goal isn’t to show somebody why they should be Catholic, or even Christian… It’s to show that the reliability and reasonableness of a world with out God is not actually that reliable or reasonable, in fact it’s often the opposite as it puts faith in that which cannot possibly exist.

319

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, no idea why you thought I believe time and space only exist inside your brain. I’ve never said or implied that.

On deductive logic, I already pointed out the 3 assumptions on which it is based. You never replied, maybe you missed my
post. The correctness of deductive logic, and the confidence we can place in it, are commensurate with the correctness of its underlying assumptions.

And please don’t argue again that deductive logic has no assumptions. It does:

  1. The Law of Identity

  2. The Law of the Excluded Middle

  3. The Law of Non-contradiction

The cosmological theory is a theory, not a fact.[/quote]

It’s a deductive argument which shows a fact…

Read and learn:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

You have to either attack the premises as false or prove that the conclusion does not follow. Causation is a fact. Simple math bears this out. If causation does not exist, then all science fall apart as well. All you have to do is prove one tiny instance where causation does not exist and the whole argument is wrong.
You’ve been tenacious as hell, but never been able to prove any part of the argument wrong.

Logic based on assumptions is inductive not deductive logic. It indicates probability not necessity. Deductive logic deals with necessity.[/quote]

Are you claiming that deductive logic doesn’t require the 3 assumptions that I noted? How many times have you stated these assumptions as facts in your arguments supporting the cosmological theory?[/quote]

Laws are established facts, theories are based on assumptions.[/quote]

Calling it a law doesn’t mean there are no underlying assumptions.

Are you aware that philosophers debate whether the 3 underlying assumptions are in fact true, and that there is some scientific evidence supporting this?

You’re acting as if these assumptions are known facts, when they are not.
[/quote]

What are the underlying ‘assumptions’?[/quote]

Identity, Excluded Middle, Non-Contradiction

They are assumptions, not irrefutable facts.
[/quote]

Laws are not assumptions, they are facts.
LAW → “(in philosophy, science, etc.)
a. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
b. a mathematical rule.”

#15.

Now what you stated is that the above ^ laws are based on assumptions, what are those assumptions?[/quote]

The assumption is that these underlying “laws” apply everywhere and under all conditions. There is good reason to believe they don’t, hence any conclusions contingent on them being true cannot be 100% proven to be true.[/quote]

Again, here is the definition of a law: a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.[/quote]

Which says nothing about my point that these 3 “laws” may not apply UNDER ALL CONDITIONS. Do you think Newton’s laws apply under all conditions? He may have thought so, but we’ve since learned that they don’t.
[/quote]

I never said, nor intimated ‘all conditions’. [/quote]

If you can’t make definitive statements covering all conditions, you can’t make absolutist statements like “an infinite regress is impossible”. For all you know, an infinite regress is possible, under certain conditions.[/quote]

An infinate regress is impossible, it’s circular, it necessarily begs the question.
To often regression is though of as going backwards or in reverse, and it sort of is…But what it is really is more or less removing properties or removing ‘the cover’ to get to the core. Like taking apart a watch to see what makes it tick… You can’t do it forever, you run out of parts…
These are the rules as they are right now. It not a matter that anything isn’t possible, it’s that right now, things are the way they are and right now, an infinite regress is a logical impossibility.

320

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I haven’t actually gone into any of the bibles substance with you yet so I’m not sure what these “false assumptions” you’re talking about are. To me, it seems like you’re making the false assumption that I’m making false assumptions. For the record, I’ve read the bible, but if my impression of you holds true then this fact won’t matter because you’ll just claim I haven’t read it every time I back you into a corner.[/quote]

[Shortened for the benefit of all]

If you say the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only, then I based on what you said, I have no choice but to believe that you haven’t read it, because what you accuse is not true.
Now, if you do know it and wish to discuss one part or another, I am fine if you have issue with one part or another, but to say the whole thing is bullshit is to say you don’t know what you are talking about.[/quote]

Show me where I said “the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only”. You can’t, because I didn’t. What I DID say was “Your bible contains >THINGS< that are >PHYSICALLY<, historically and >LOGICALLY< impossible”. As you can see, I’ve highlighted everything in the quote that you’ve conveniently ignored in order to make me out to be some kind of irrational extremest.
[/quote]
Well that’s precisely what I mean, you say that broadly with out specifying a part. Different parts exist for different reasons. It’s kind of a dense book, you mind drilling down on a part? The purpose of one thing or another is different depending on context.
If you look at the bible as a word for word, single layer literal book, it’s not going to make sense. But it’s not that kind book. It’s muti faceted. Drill down on a part and we can discuss.

[quote]
So no, I haven’t forced you to assume anything. Nobody is twisting you’re arm, you’ve just failed to comprehend what I’m talking about (again).

If you want to go into specifics, then fine, let’s go into specifics.
Let’s start with something simple. According to the bible, is it okay to marry a non-believer?[/quote]

It tends to be frowned upon, not for the sake of the non-believer, but for the sake of the believer. In other words, it really boils down to not putting a spouse or a person over God.
Are you looking NT or OT? Is their a specific verse or passage you have in mind?