Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
Don't hold your breath.
It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.
I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
2. The origin of logic?
3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
Number 3 is the most daunting.
I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!
I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
Don't hold your breath.
It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.
I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
2. The origin of logic?
3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
Number 3 is the most daunting.
I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!
I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
Besides, I already described a computer system that can collect all knowledge in the universe, yet not be aware of that knowledge.
?Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
Don't hold your breath.
It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.
I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
2. The origin of logic?
3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
Number 3 is the most daunting.
I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!
I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
?Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
Don't hold your breath.
It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.
I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
2. The origin of logic?
3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
Number 3 is the most daunting.
I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!
I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
Maybe that will prompt you to think about it a bit more.
and that is not what the xchristians in this thread have collectively conspired to accomplish ?
the only paradox would be free/will in a pre deterministic Universe ...
no but then the christian bible does negate free/will by their central precept that "No one comes to the Father except through me".
.
Rather than be oblique, I'll explain. I didn't say scientists don't understand philosophy - all of the best ones understand it implicitly. I said they aren't necessarily skilled in philosophy, and pointed out that, when that is the case, it is to their detriment. Philosophy is what distinguishes science from engineering and craft. Real science is about finding new understanding and new truth, and to do that effectively requires mastery of the tools we use to derive truth - and that is ultimate domain of philosophy.
This suggests that God would choose to not be aware of something?
?Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
Don't hold your breath.
It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.
I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
2. The origin of logic?
3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
Number 3 is the most daunting.
I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!
I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
LOL. What I mean is that rational logic is always open ended leaving the door open for new information that can change our perceptions and/or understandings. To say that we understand as well as we can with the information we have is to be logical. To say this is the way it is period is not logic but dogma.
My practical self goes with the knowledge I have to function in my world and generally that knowledge is sufficient to accomplish whatever I need to accomplish at the time.
My scientific self knows that I know only a teensy bit of what there is know about anything which makes life always exciting because we never know what else is possible. And if I had been born 100 years from now, I'm quite sure my perception and understanding about many things would be different than they are now because humankind will likely have advanced many times over what it has done in the last 100 years.
Will our perceptions about God have changed too in the next 100 years? I have to suspect they will as they have certainly changed over all the past millennia of recorded history.
Q.W.'s post doesn't make sense to me. It seemed you agreed with it.
Do you ever look up this stuff before you swallow it whole and post it? Other than Jesus and Dionysus none of these figures are reported to have a mortal mother. All but Jesus had a father who begat them in the usual way, so the virgin story doesn't hold up except in the case of Jesus. There are other reports of virgin births in ancient mythology but they don't include the non-Jesus figures on your list. Whoever put together this ridiculous comparison absolutely didn't do their homework and shame on you for furthering this nonsense that you will find posted for the gullible on anti-Christian, anti-religion websites, but never in the credible accounts of ancient mythology.
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...
ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...
ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
Yes.
People who think God is a myth must also believe if you stare at a pile of dirt long enough it will turn into a clam.
Then if you stare at that clam long enough it will turn into a gorilla.
All because of their gods "time and chance."
Forgive our hyper-bewilderment.
Another intellectually challenged atheist demanding physical proof of a spiritual existence. Why bother, he's never gonna understand it anyway (not that he really wants to). You're either smart enough to be able to think outside the box or you're not, and NP obviously isn't.
Title is pretty self-explanatory. Go.
The Cosmological argument fails.
The kalam fails.
The ontological argument fails.
The modal ontological argument only proves the possibility of god, by virtue of modal logic and axiom S5.
The teleological argument fails.
The transcendental argument fails.
...
ARE THERE ANY? For the past three thousand years, the smartest minds have been unable to provide a single syllogism that conclusively demonstrates god's existence.
Yet, all of these supremely arrogant theists run their mouth against atheism, as if they have an epistemological leg to stand on, when they don't.
Any day now! We are waiting for your argument, and until then, atheism is justified.
Yes.
People who think God is a myth must also believe if you stare at a pile of dirt long enough it will turn into a clam.
Then if you stare at that clam long enough it will turn into a gorilla.
All because of their gods "time and chance."
Forgive our hyper-bewilderment.
Why would someone today, who has never seen a god themself, who has all the facts, still believe one exists just because his corrupt church and ignorant ancestors told him there is one?
I assume you are very gullible if you believe an unbelievable story just because everyone else you know believes it. No wonder they call you their flock you sheep.
Why there is no god
I was watching a show the other day on the Pharoah's and they had such details when it came to this time in history. Actual historical record or who the Pharoah's were, what life was like back then, drawings or writings, etc.
My point is, when you see how they lived back 7000 years ago, it doesn't seem that long ago. They had laws, kings, libraries, schools, societies, doctors, etc. Doesn't seem that much different than now.
Now think about stories like Noah living 350 years or Jonah living in the belly of a fish for 3 days and living and all the other stupid stories in Christianity. None of it jives with reality or history. So clearly all made up.
Of course we want to you fucking idiot!
Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshiping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?
If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.
