tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2323116601258035162..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Jello FellowRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12311169672218933032008-12-19T16:58:00.000-05:002008-12-19T16:58:00.000-05:00Sorry, I left the "l" off the end of that link. H...Sorry, I left the "l" off the end of that link. Here it is again:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2008/12/proof-that-presuppositional-apologetics.html" REL="nofollow">Proof That Presuppositional Apologetics Cannot Produce Valid Arguments</A>Jason Streitfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49218033530122194482008-12-19T16:54:00.000-05:002008-12-19T16:54:00.000-05:00Hey there everybody,I've been working on a more th...Hey there everybody,<BR/><BR/>I've been working on a more thorough presentation of my arguments against presuppositional apologetics in particular, and theism in general, and a more elaborate presentation of my own views. However, I'm going on vacation now, so I won't be able to finish it before the end of the year. January will be a busy month for me, but I hope to have all of my arguments up on my blog by the end of January.<BR/><BR/>For the time being, here is a little argument I devised which stands alone.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://specterofreason.blogspot.com/2008/12/proof-that-presuppositional-apologetics.htm" REL="nofollow">Proof That Presuppositional Apologetics Cannot Produce Valid Arguments</A>Jason Streitfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57111933124368144812008-12-03T17:02:00.000-05:002008-12-03T17:02:00.000-05:00No, it isn't.No, it isn't.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59767525411550130362008-12-03T16:48:00.000-05:002008-12-03T16:48:00.000-05:00If you did see something that was both A and not-A...<I>If you did see something that was both A and not-A, I assume that you would revise your faith in the law of non-contradiction?</I><BR/><BR/>That's a question *you* need to answer, Paul C. Not the Triabloggers.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10074214170223769152008-12-03T15:25:00.000-05:002008-12-03T15:25:00.000-05:00Gene:So, why can't you grasp the distinction I mad...Gene:<BR/><BR/><I>So, why can't you grasp the distinction I made beforehand? I don't regard "atheism" as "gibberish." I regard atheism as "untrue."</I> <BR/><BR/>I gather that you also believe that atheism is profoundly irrational. Is something that is profoundly irrational not gibberish?<BR/><BR/><I>I don't have to be a paramecium in order to understand the inner workings of paramecia. I don't have to be a dollar bill or print counterfeit media in order to know what a true dollar bill looks and feels like.</I><BR/><BR/>Those are substantially different experiences to the mental experiences we're talking about. I also think that we are using the words "understanding" in different ways - you equate reading about something with understanding it. Do you believe that you understand what it is really like to have schizophrenia if you don't suffer from it yourself? (Note that I'm not comparing theism or atheism to mental illness, merely using a mental experience as a parallel.) I don't believe that it's possible, and that's the sense in which I am using the word "understanding".<BR/><BR/><I>I don't regard any work that claims to be "theology" to be theology unless it is reflective of the Christian tradition. All others are reflections of idolatry. The Bible doesn't recognize the legitimacy of other sorts of theology, and neither to I. I take my usage of the terms in that regard. With respect to Hinduism, I regard it as generally more of a philosophy than a "theology."</I><BR/><BR/>That was the point I was originally trying to make, of course: that "a theological work is only meaningful if you already subscribe to the foundations of the theology it describes." Perhaps we are also using the word "meaningful" in different ways?<BR/><BR/><I>Regarding Hinduism, 3 come to mind:</I><BR/><BR/>If a Hindu from India said that their exposure to Christianity consisted of 3 books and a family who lived down the road, would you accept that their understanding of Christianity was particularly deep?<BR/><BR/><I>Our senses don't get us to the law of non-contradiction.</I><BR/><BR/>I didn't say that they did. I said that you believe that law of non-contradiction because it agrees with your observations. If you did see something that was both A and not-A, I assume that you would revise your faith in the law of non-contradiction?Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55378790350164319192008-12-03T14:58:00.000-05:002008-12-03T14:58:00.000-05:00Peter: I didn't say that you derived the laws of l...Peter: I didn't say that you derived the laws of logic from your observations, but that you believe the laws of logic because they fit with your observations.<BR/><BR/><I>Example: I'm walking alone at night and hear someone call my name. I turn and look, but the streets are empty. My sight is telling me something in direct contradiction to what my ears have told me. My senses, in other words, are telling me A is non-A. Example: I watch a 3D movie at the theater and see a monster jump out at me. I jump in my seat even though I have experienced 3D movies in the past and know that they cannot hurt me. My senses simultaneously tell me A (it's safe) and non-A (it's not safe).</I><BR/><BR/>In both of these instances, I'm not convinced that you then think "Aha! The law of non-contradiction says that things cannot be both A and not-A simultaneously! Therefore I must choose whether A or not-A is valid." Instead you make further observations to clarify the situation - and sure enough, you find that your observations match the law of non-contradiction.<BR/><BR/><I>I do not learn logic from my senses at all. Instead, I use logic to determine which of my senses to believe.</I><BR/><BR/>The corollary of that argument is that people who don't know logic don't know which of their senses to believe, which doesn't seem to be how most people in the world operate. And I didn't argue that you <B>learn</B> logic from your senses. I said that you believe the laws of logic because they fit with your observations.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28625487212686060162008-12-02T21:32:00.000-05:002008-12-02T21:32:00.000-05:00You believe in the law of non-contradiction becaus...<I>You believe in the law of non-contradiction because it fits with your observations of reality, not because somebody told you to.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, if I trusted my senses and observations, I would believe in the law of contradiction. Pike has already pointed to sense experience - well how about human communication? There's an old saying, put two Baptists in a room, and you get three opinions. Indeed, all three may be mutually contradictory. <BR/><BR/>Our senses don't get us to the law of non-contradiction. Indeed, we don't see something coming into being and not coming into being at the same time. Where in the physical world ("nature" as Stretfield put it) can we find the abstract property of non-contradiction?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-27320582869515207972008-12-02T21:27:00.000-05:002008-12-02T21:27:00.000-05:00I find it interesting that you equate "interacting...<I>I find it interesting that you equate "interacting with the literature" with understanding a religion - personally I don't think for a moment that the first has much to do with the second.</I><BR/><BR/>Given the profound irrationality of your mind, this isn't at all surprising. I'm merely addressing Stretfield on his own terms. <BR/><BR/>And let the record show that your original complaint regarded a simple modified quotation from the WSC being "gibberish," now to it being "meaningful" - in a subjective sense. Was this the original nature of Stretfield's complaint? - No. Was this the original nature of your own complaint? - No.<BR/><BR/><I>In any case, I didn't say that you couldn't understand them, I said that they're only meaningful from the inside.</I><BR/><BR/>No, you said: Perhaps this sounds well-defined from the inside, but from the outside, it just looks like gibberish. <BR/><BR/>You tried to speak for Stretfield. How did Stretfield frame his objection? By way of knowledge by experience or knowledge by description? Answer: the latter, not the former. <BR/><BR/><I>In any case, I didn't say that you couldn't understand them, I said that they're only meaningful from the inside. I imagine that you would agree that your experience of reading the Bible is much more meaningful than mine precisely because of that difference. Many of my friends have told me that they only really understood the Bible after they became Christian - some going so far as to say that understanding the Bible was one of the ways in which they recognised that they were Christian. I agree with them.</I><BR/><BR/>A good example of knowledge by experience. So, why can't you grasp the distinction I made beforehand? I don't regard "atheism" as "gibberish." I regard atheism as "untrue." Unlike you, it seems, I can put some critical distance between myself and the material under the microscope. I don't have to be a paramecium in order to understand the inner workings of paramecia. I don't have to be a dollar bill or print counterfeit media in order to know what a true dollar bill looks and feels like.<BR/><BR/><I>To be brutally honest, the quotation marks around the word "theology" speaks more loudly than the words that you've written.</I><BR/><BR/>Thank you for the psychobabble. I'll be brutally honest in return. I don't regard any work that claims to be "theology" to be theology unless it is reflective of the Christian tradition. All others are reflections of idolatry. The Bible doesn't recognize the legitimacy of other sorts of theology, and neither to I. I take my usage of the terms in that regard. With respect to Hinduism, I regard it as generally more of a philosophy than a "theology." <BR/><BR/>Regarding Hinduism, 3 come to mind: <BR/><BR/>Selections from Surendranath Dasgupta's Essays.<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/> Hinduism: A Religion to Live By, by Chaudhuri.<BR/><BR/>as well as Flood's intro text.<BR/><BR/>In addition, I have Hindu neighbors 3 houses down from me with whom my family has been friends for a number of years. We've interacted quite a bit.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57955973110810406232008-12-02T19:39:00.000-05:002008-12-02T19:39:00.000-05:00By the way, I think this example might even better...By the way, I think this example might even better explain why going from observations -> logic is a fallacy.<BR/><BR/>Imagine a perfectly working video camera that is taking a picture of a red ball on a black screen. We look at this image and see "Red ball." We, as humans, "see" the Law of Identity as well as the Law of Non-Contradiction.<BR/><BR/>What does the camera "see"?<BR/><BR/>The camera has all the hardware needed to differentiate between a red pixel and a black pixel. But the camera <I>DOESN'T</I> make that distinction.<BR/><BR/>How do we get the camera to be able to differentiate between the red ball and the black background? We have to supply the logic <I>ourselves</I> in the form of a program. We supply the logic that enables the camera to "make sense" of the fact that a red pixel is different from a black pixel.<BR/><BR/>The logic precedes the ability to make a differentiation, even if all the hardware is intact and in perfect working order. To relate it to a human, you can have a perfectly functioning eye, but if the eye lacks a brain <I>preloaded with logic</I>, the human can make no sense of the image, not even to differentiate between black and red.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35211343430778632812008-12-02T19:08:00.000-05:002008-12-02T19:08:00.000-05:00Paul C. said:---You believe in the law of non-cont...Paul C. said:<BR/>---<BR/>You believe in the law of non-contradiction because it fits with your observations of reality, not because somebody told you to.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you can read my mind for the rest of my response to you too.<BR/><BR/>And for the record, it does NOT fit with my observations of reality. It fits with <I>most</I> of my observations, but not all of them.<BR/><BR/>Example: I'm walking alone at night and hear someone call my name. I turn and look, but the streets are empty. My sight is telling me something in direct contradiction to what my ears have told me. My senses, in other words, are telling me A is non-A.<BR/><BR/>Example: I watch a 3D movie at the theater and see a monster jump out at me. I jump in my seat even though I have experienced 3D movies in the past and know that they cannot hurt me. My senses simultaneously tell me A (it's safe) and non-A (it's not safe).<BR/><BR/>I do not learn logic from my senses at all. Instead, I use logic to determine which of my senses to believe. This presents your theory with a bit of a problem.<BR/><BR/>Paul C. said:<BR/>---<BR/>This suggests that the existence of God operates on a different level to the laws of logic. More specifically, it suggests that the observable facts about the existence of God are not easily tested against reality. How else would you account for the discrepancy?<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>By pointing out that observable facts about the existence of God are <I>less desired</I> by the carnal mind, and therefore supressed. Again, we have to use our reason to interpret our senses, not vice versa, and if our reason is based on faulty presuppositions, we will come to faulty conclusions <I>regardless</I> of how accurate our system of logic is.<BR/><BR/>Paul C. said:<BR/>---<BR/>I don't think there's a reason why you should care<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Exactly my point.<BR/><BR/>Paul C. said:<BR/>---<BR/>and I still struggle to understand what you mean by "care".<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Then you have my pity.<BR/><BR/>Paul C. said:<BR/>---<BR/>I'd recommend that if you plan to use the word pompous in future, you spell it correctly.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>What is "correct" spelling anyway?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37583036234461077652008-12-02T19:00:00.000-05:002008-12-02T19:00:00.000-05:00Wrong. All one has to do is make an elementary eff...<I>Wrong. All one has to do is make an elementary effort to interact with the literature. You're conflating the idea of what is meaningful to you, (1) subjectively as an individual, with just a cursory look at the material, with what is (2) meaningful with respect to a critical distance, a fair look at the material. I can understand Hindu theological works "from the outside" and ascertain the meaning of the terms and the categories in which they subsist.</I><BR/><BR/>I find it interesting that you equate "interacting with the literature" with understanding a religion - personally I don't think for a moment that the first has much to do with the second. It seems to be a peculiarly academic approach to take to what is, first and foremost, a lived experience.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I didn't say that you couldn't understand them, I said that they're only meaningful from the inside. I imagine that you would agree that your experience of reading the Bible is much more meaningful than mine precisely because of that difference. Many of my friends have told me that they only really understood the Bible after they became Christian - some going so far as to say that understanding the Bible was one of the ways in which they recognised that they were Christian. I agree with them.<BR/><BR/><I>1. With respect to internal coherence or incoherence. Does Hindu "theology" have, for example, the metaphysical machinery to support itself internally?</I><BR/><BR/>To be brutally honest, the quotation marks around the word "theology" speaks more loudly than the words that you've written. Might I ask what Hindu theological works you've read, by the way?Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56860898938473313332008-12-02T18:42:00.000-05:002008-12-02T18:42:00.000-05:00If I believe in the law of non-contradiction becau...<I>If I believe in the law of non-contradiction because of God's injunction against lying (just as an example) and Jason believes in the law of non-contradiction because he feels like it, we do NOT believe in the same law.</I><BR/><BR/>You believe in the law of non-contradiction because it fits with your observations of reality, not because somebody told you to. Jason believes in it for exactly the same reason. Anything that you add on top of that is just icing on the cake, rather than the reason you believe.<BR/><BR/><I>If I say: "Proposition A is logical" then that does NOT mean the same thing as it would if Jason said "Proposition A is logical." My statement means that it is objectively the case for all people in all times that A is logical while Jason means merely that his own subjective opinion is that Proposition A is logical, but which could be overturned if enough people decided to believe it wasn't logical and we altered the rules of logic.</I><BR/><BR/>That's not what Jason means at all, and I believe that you know that. However I'll let him address that question if he wishes, and simply note that I do not necessarily agree with his reasoning myself.<BR/><BR/><I>Nice begging the question there. From bare logic alone all you could say is that there is a disagreement between Jason and I. You could not give a PREFERENCE without assuming one over the other.</I><BR/><BR/>It doesn't beg the question at all. What I'm saying is that there are two states in play:<BR/><BR/>1. On the <B>substance</B> of the laws of logic (i.e. what they consist of) you are in broad agreement. This is because of what you are both able to observe, regardless of your beliefs about where the laws of logic come from and what their nature is. You both observe evidence and can agree on what they are.<BR/><BR/>2. On the <B>substance</B> of the existence of God (i.e. what God consists of) you are not in agreement. This is because you claim to be able to observe facts about God and Jason claims not to be able to observe those facts. One of you is misguided about their observations, and therefore you cannot agree.<BR/><BR/>This suggests that the existence of God operates on a different level to the laws of logic. More specifically, it suggests that the observable facts about the existence of God are not easily tested against reality. How else would you account for the discrepancy?<BR/><BR/><I>Be that as it may, suppose that Jason's logic does say that Jason's view is right. WHY SHOULD I CARE?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think there's a reason why you should care, and I still struggle to understand what you mean by "care".<BR/><BR/><I>Hey, I can play the pompus ass game too! And I bet I can be better at it than you if I really put my mind to it!</I><BR/><BR/>I'd recommend that if you plan to use the word pompous in future, you spell it correctly.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4563088033994386992008-12-02T18:27:00.000-05:002008-12-02T18:27:00.000-05:00"But December's upon us, and I don't have so much ..."But December's upon us, and I don't have so much time to play at the moment."<BR/><BR/>We wouldn't want Jason's atheistic activities to interfere with his Christmas devotions.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1127361135915178422008-12-02T18:01:00.000-05:002008-12-02T18:01:00.000-05:00My point is that from the outside these works are ...<I>My point is that from the outside these works are gibberish.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, that's what you said. <BR/><I> A theological work is only meaningful if you already subscribe to the foundations of the theology it describes. </I><BR/><BR/>Wrong. All one has to do is make an elementary effort to interact with the literature. You're conflating the idea of what is meaningful to you, (1) subjectively as an individual, with just a cursory look at the material, with what is (2) meaningful with respect to a critical distance, a fair look at the material. I can understand Hindu theological works "from the outside" and ascertain the meaning of the terms and the categories in which they subsist. <BR/><BR/>Jason has set himself up not as a person who has looked at the definition of "God" off the street, at a cursory glance (1) above. No, rather he has set himself up as person who has allegedly studied the material, (2) above.<BR/><BR/><I>Do you take your definition of God from Hindu theological works, for example</I><BR/><BR/>No, but that doesn't mean that I judge them to be "gibberish." Rather, I judge them:<BR/><BR/>1. With respect to internal coherence or incoherence. Does Hindu "theology" have, for example, the metaphysical machinery to support itself internally?<BR/><BR/>2. With respect to an external critique, I measure them against the terms of theism, specifically Christian theism. Does Christian theism, for example, have the metaphysical machinery to do what Hinduism cannnot?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67128294287450945212008-12-02T16:14:00.000-05:002008-12-02T16:14:00.000-05:00That's fine, Jason. I'm looking forward to it so ...That's fine, Jason. I'm looking forward to it so we have something substantial to work with :-)Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19828135863338302042008-12-02T16:08:00.000-05:002008-12-02T16:08:00.000-05:00Peter,"First, when you have six people responding ...Peter,<BR/><BR/>"First, when you have six people responding to you and you still have half of the responses, that says something."<BR/><BR/>It says I'm trying to keep up.<BR/><BR/>Look.<BR/><BR/>1) Six people write to Jason. (Post count = 6)<BR/><BR/>2) Jason responds to six posts, giving each post its own post in response. (Post count = 12)<BR/><BR/>Jason = 6, others = 6.<BR/><BR/>Half.<BR/><BR/><BR/>But, you say, "Secondly, it's not simply the sheer number, but the obfuscation you employed in the process."<BR/><BR/>No, Peter. I don't think that's fair or accurate. No obfuscation.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm happy to play by your rules. This is your playground, after all. I just don't like the cheap shots.<BR/><BR/>In any case, what I <I>really</I> want to say is that I'm not sure when I'll be able to post anything substantive. Maybe a few days, maybe a week. Hopefully before the end of the year. But December's upon us, and I don't have so much time to play at the moment.<BR/><BR/>When I do have time, here's what you can expect: a lengthy, thorough, single entry in which I will try to answer all of the substantive arguments levelled against me, present my views on the issues that need to be dealt with, provide arguments for those of my views which have been questioned, and present a clearer view of my understanding in general.<BR/><BR/>Again, hopefully before the new year. But I can't promise that.Jason Streitfeldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06950357341620206095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37872200642157252222008-12-02T14:58:00.000-05:002008-12-02T14:58:00.000-05:00Paul C. said:---For the purposes of having a discu...Paul C. said:<BR/>---<BR/>For the purposes of having a discussion, yes - that's all that matters, that you have common agreement on basic terms.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Except we don't. We have a faux-agreement. If I believe in the law of non-contradiction because of God's injunction against lying (just as an example) and Jason believes in the law of non-contradiction because he feels like it, we do <I>NOT</I> believe in the same law. Even though we can gain some milage out of it, the foundation for our beliefs are too radically different.<BR/><BR/>So you only have surface-level agreement that quickly crumbles when you face reality.<BR/><BR/>Paul C. said:<BR/>---<BR/>Concerning the substance of the laws of logic, in what way does his opinion not line up with yours? <BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Given that he doesn't believe in objective, universal logic, then we have a foundational disagreement. If I say: "Proposition A is logical" then that does <I>NOT</I> mean the same thing as it would if Jason said "Proposition A is logical." My statement means that it is objectively the case for all people in all times that A is logical while Jason means merely that his own subjective opinion is that Proposition A is logical, but which could be overturned if enough people decided to believe it wasn't logical and we altered the rules of logic. Catestrophic difference.<BR/><BR/>Paul C. said:<BR/>---<BR/>If your subjective opinion on issues such as the substance of God does not line up with Jason's, then the obvious answer to the dilemma is that the substance of God is not on a par with the substance of the laws of logic - at least in terms of being tested against reality.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Nice begging the question there. From bare logic alone all you could say is that there is a disagreement between Jason and I. You could not give a PREFERENCE without assuming one over the other.<BR/><BR/>Be that as it may, suppose that Jason's logic does say that Jason's view is right. WHY SHOULD I CARE?<BR/><BR/>You still haven't provided an answer to this.<BR/><BR/>After all, my logic says that Jason's view is wrong, and my logic is also established objectively which provides a reason for me to say that Jason <I>OUGHT</I> to agree. Jason has no "ought" on his view.<BR/><BR/>Hey, isn't that what I pointed out originally? That Jason needs to demonstrate why I ought to care about his view of logic? WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF YOU ACTUALLY ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE INSTEAD OF DANCING AROUND IT AND FORCING US TO RUN IN CIRCLES? <BR/><BR/>I have better things to do with my time, at least. So get with the program already.<BR/><BR/>Paul C. said:<BR/>---<BR/>Do you have any actual evidence that I'm "self-blinding", or even a definition of what "self-blinding" means in this context?<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Do you have any definition for what "you", "evidence", "definition" and "context" means?<BR/><BR/>Hey, I can play the pompus ass game too! And I bet I can be better at it than you if I really put my mind to it!Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35332041441039500142008-12-02T13:28:00.000-05:002008-12-02T13:28:00.000-05:00Gene:As I *also* pointed out, there are any number...Gene:<BR/><BR/><I>As I *also* pointed out, there are any number of theological works that flesh out this definition.</I><BR/><BR/>My point is that <B>from the outside</B> these works are gibberish. A theological work is only meaningful if you already subscribe to the foundations of the theology it describes. Do you take your definition of God from Hindu theological works, for example?Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91976110991583893762008-12-02T13:22:00.000-05:002008-12-02T13:22:00.000-05:00If Jason's subjective opinion lines up with my sub...<I>If Jason's subjective opinion lines up with my subjective opinion, then that's all that matters?</I><BR/><BR/>For the purposes of having a discussion, yes - that's all that matters, that you have common agreement on basic terms.<BR/><BR/><I>But then there's the fact that his subjective opinion does NOT line up with my subjective opinion.</I><BR/><BR/>Concerning the <B>substance</B> of the laws of logic, in what way does his opinion not line up with yours? I would guess that your "opinions" line up almost exactly, regardless of what you think the origin of the laws of logic are.<BR/><BR/>If your subjective opinion on issues such as the substance of God does not line up with Jason's, then the obvious answer to the dilemma is that the substance of God is not on a par with the substance of the laws of logic - at least in terms of being tested against reality.<BR/><BR/><I>Self-blinding is no excuse for ignorance.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you have any actual evidence that I'm "self-blinding", or even a definition of what "self-blinding" means in this context?Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74811294922420838292008-12-02T04:11:00.000-05:002008-12-02T04:11:00.000-05:00In a culture such as ours that has lost much of it...<I>In a culture such as ours that has lost much of its common historical knowledge about what comprises theism (let alone Christianity), I am not surprised that Paul C. has remarked that Gene's definition of God seems like gibberish (whether or not Paul himself thinks it's gibberish). Funny, no one seems to misunderstand the way Eckhart Tolle defines God, which is nothing more than attitudes and feelings. What gibberish?</I><BR/><BR/>I'll second that! Excellent observation. Our culture has dumbed itself down so much with respect to the categories that even a quote from the WSC - and very simple one at that - isn't understood, while Tolle's is. That reflects the priorities of our society and minds of men. Why bother with the WSC when we can talk about our feelings. If only I had a rolleyes smile to place here.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89605359867409108682008-12-02T04:09:00.000-05:002008-12-02T04:09:00.000-05:00Haven't Mantata and Anderson stated that the conce...<I>Haven't Mantata and Anderson stated that the concept of a Trinity is (seemingly) paradoxical and beyond human cognition?</I><BR/><BR/>Insofar as God is, in His Being, completely unlike us, that's true. Insofar as God has communicated the truth of this to us, no that's not true. The Trinity isn't illogical or irrational, it makes perfect sense if you don't import meanings of terms like "person" into the concept that the concept was never intended by the Sub-Apostolic creeds to convey.<BR/><BR/><I> Don't members of your own faith community disagree on the meaning of the term "Trinity"? </I><BR/><BR/>Our faith community? You mean the Reformed community or the Christian community?<BR/><BR/>If (a) we disagree among ourselves about whether or not we agree with certain concepts like Nicene Subortionationism, but we don't disagree with respect to the idea that God is 3 Persons, a single Being.<BR/><BR/><I>Haven't smart people agreed to disagree on its meaning for ages?</I> There has been much said with respect to the development of the doctrine. Nobody denies this, but the 3 orthodox families of the Christian tradition in regard to this doctrine (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, (Evangelical) Protestant) remarkably agree, to the point that West and East came EXTREMELY close to reproachment in the Middle Ages. The East and West differ over ideas like the procession of the Persons - is it single or double, but we do NOT disagree over the fundamental concept itself.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3218492519436753042008-12-02T01:42:00.000-05:002008-12-02T01:42:00.000-05:00Jen said:Haven't Mantata and Anderson stated that ...Jen said:<BR/><I>Haven't Mantata and Anderson stated that the concept of a Trinity is (seemingly) paradoxical and beyond human cognition? Don't members of your own faith community disagree on the meaning of the term "Trinity"? Haven't smart people agreed to disagree on its meaning for ages?</I><BR/><BR/>Not understanding how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist <I>in</I> Trinity is not the same as disagreeing on the meaning of the term "Trinity." The meaning of the word "Trinity" is accepted across Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox creed-confessing churches as One God existing in three Persons. <BR/><BR/>In a culture such as ours that has lost much of its common historical knowledge about what comprises theism (let alone Christianity), I am not surprised that Paul C. has remarked that Gene's definition of God seems like gibberish (whether or not Paul himself thinks it's gibberish). Funny, no one seems to misunderstand the way Eckhart Tolle defines God, which is nothing more than attitudes and feelings. What gibberish?Letitia (The Damsel)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00506073682846275560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53863948761913767682008-12-02T01:28:00.000-05:002008-12-02T01:28:00.000-05:00Jen,Even if that were the case (I think you vastly...Jen,<BR/><BR/>Even if that were the case (I think you vastly overstate it), the same could be said of Quantum theory. Would you consider Qunatum theory to be "ill defined"? After all:<BR/><BR/>A) It is seemingly paradoxical and beyond human understanding.<BR/><BR/>B) Members of the physics community disagree on such things as the Copenhagen interpretation.<BR/><BR/>C) Smart people have agreed to disagree on those certain aspects of it for quite some time now.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54426351274699061212008-12-01T23:41:00.000-05:002008-12-01T23:41:00.000-05:00"What about the concept of a triune spirit is ill ..."What about the concept of a triune spirit is ill defined?"<BR/><BR/>Haven't Mantata and Anderson stated that the concept of a Trinity is (seemingly) paradoxical and beyond human cognition? Don't members of your own faith community disagree on the meaning of the term "Trinity"? Haven't smart people agreed to disagree on its meaning for ages?Jen H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06290048434399027113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29166251819871965762008-12-01T20:28:00.000-05:002008-12-01T20:28:00.000-05:00Perhaps this sounds well-defined from the inside, ...<I>Perhaps this sounds well-defined from the inside, but from the outside, it just looks like gibberish. I'm not saying this to be argumentative, merely to try and communicate where I think Jason is coming from.</I><BR/><BR/>As I *also* pointed out, there are any number of theological works that flesh out this definition.<BR/><BR/>Jason's original complaint was that "God" is ill-defined. Is this an external or internal critique?<BR/><BR/>If it's an internal critique, then where's the supporting argument?<BR/><BR/>If it's an external critique then simply saying things like "nature is what it is," doesn't get him where he wants to go. Simply complaining that something is "gibberish" from the outside, won't cut it either. How so? There is an extensive body of literature on the Trinity alone. What about the concept of a triune spirit is ill defined? What about that is "gibberish." Simply saying that "God" fits something conjured up from the imagination doesn't work either - for that doesn't explain the definition. It simply begs the question. Steve has already been over this terrain with Jason.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.com