You self-characterize as “a corrupt old logician.” Well, I don’t find any problem with your logic. And I don’t see any evidence that could convict you of being “corrupt” – or even old for that matter.
This is where you are a Platonist and I am not. The source isn't 'out there.'
And this constitutes evidence, let alone proof – why??? What is the ground for your belief that the “source isn’t ‘out there?’” Do you argue that human insight is useless to human existence?
You write: “Human beings have lived without 'justice' for so much of existence that to come up with how we think we have it now would be a long, long post. I will undertake it if you wish, but not now. Suffice to say I think we would disagree on the ultimate definition.”
Why do you say that we would disagree, LogicWings? What evidence do you have in support of that allegation?
You continue: “Truth is when concepts and thoughts are coherent with reality.... Goodness is taking those actions that will result in enhancing one's life. This will bring howls of protest, but at root this is true.”
No howls of protest from me, LogicWings; for you have basically defined the entire idea of goodness – as divinely intended – in the foregoing statement.
Then you say another thing I agree with, at least in part: Truth “is an ideal that has yet never really been practiced. I'm getting into another offshoot here but the 'source' isn't some mystical 'thing' but a very practical issue.”
Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason that truth is a “practical issue” is because it has a divine (or “mystical,” in your words) source? If this is not so, then why would innumerable generations of human beings by now continue to be interested in problems of truth? Do you suppose this is something “captured” by “Darwinian memory?” Or could the source be “located” somewhere outside the materialist explanation?
You say: “'Holy' scripture Begs the Question that there is such a thing as 'holy.' Circular reasoning.”
Circular reasoning???? Yegads, man! If you want circular reasoning, go check out Georg Hegel. God’s “reasoning” – made manifest in the world through the incarnation and sacrifice of His Son – was designed to be the very prescription for release from the “circularity” of purely human, purely earthly, experience. This is probably the hardest part for a skeptical secularist like yourself to entertain, let alone credit as to having any good purpose. Yet it is precisely this point that I would invite you to try in your meditations.
The natural isn't proof of anything but itself. Calling it 'Creation' is, once again, Begging the Question it was 'created' and not, simply is.
Well, if something “simply is,” that suggests to me it didn’t get there “out of its own powers.” It seems that most of the things that man can do by himself cost him seriously in terms of time, effort, and confusion. So if man was the creator, then the resulting creation probably wouldn't be "simple."
Then again, I think Aristotle was right when he said effects have causes; thus creatures have creators. Just stands to reason, I say.
Snipping a bit, you continue thusly: “And this is exactly the point. What is the purpose of reason? To help us survive in reality. What is the opposite of reason? That which opposes life. You are saying God is beyond logic, but you got here by reasoning that must be the case since God doesn't stand to logic. But logic and reason are the very means to our survival in life, (which you call the intramundane!) so we must reject the tools that support our very lives to believe in this irrationality! I see no 'reason' to believe any of this.”
God is “beyond logic” in the precise sense that He is the Source and Standard of logic. Also Source and Standard of such a thing as “natural reason,” not to mention human free will. Being the Maker, He Makes the Standard: He is the Maker of all standards of Truth in this world – and the next, whether you believe in a “next world” or not. The “potter” and the “vessel he fashions out of clay” are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
And if you were to ask me, the vessel, finally, isn’t in much of a position to argue or quibble with the Potter.
* * * * * * *
I must stop for now, LogicWings. Though there is so much else in your last worthy of thoughtful consideration, the hour is grown so late, and I’m feeling so sleepy right now, that I hope you will forgive me if I just “sleep on it,” and (hopefully) I may get the chance to speak with you again tomorrow.
Good night!
No howls of protest from me, LogicWings; for you have basically defined the entire idea of goodness – as divinely intended – in the foregoing statement.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? -Mark 8:36
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. -Hebrews 12:2
According to the world view you adhere to I am either 'saved' or I am 'corrupt.' There is no middle ground. My humour is often lost on others. This was a self deprecating joke that conforms to your beliefs. I must be this 'corrupt old logician' if I don't believe as you do. There is no other possibility allowed.
This is why I wish you were teaching Sunday school rather than arguing with me here. I would much rather philosophically wrestle with some male counterpart than deal with a beautiful bright female spirit like yours or Alamo Girl. It doesn't seem fair somehow, but the guys are all wimps hiding behind ideas they can't defend and you ladies are letting it all hang out there. I have to admire both of you for that. I love you both in a way you will never know.
And this constitutes evidence, let alone proof – why??? What is the ground for your belief that the “source isn’t ‘out there?’” Do you argue that human insight is useless to human existence?
There is insight, and then, there is insight. There is your insight that it is 'out there' and then there is the Zen insight that there is no 'out there.' Which insight do I believe? You cannot give any evidence of an 'out there' but I have only evidence of a 'here-now.' No matter where you go, you are here-now. All else is deduction, and subsequent, induction. Give me evidence, other than insight which can be contradicted by other insight, that there is an 'out there.'
Why do you say that we would disagree, LogicWings? What evidence do you have in support of that allegation?
Touche' my dear. It is a deduction. From what I have learned of your beliefs, I have concluded so. I could be wrong. Care to define justice? Or do I have to go first?
No howls of protest from me, LogicWings; for you have basically defined the entire idea of goodness – as divinely intended – in the foregoing statement.
Thank you, by your statement I am, at least, not so far 'off the mark.' But my definition of goodness has no 'divine intention' in it. It is pure reason.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason that truth is a “practical issue” is because it has a divine (or “mystical,” in your words) source?
Of course, I started there. That is the whole point. That idea doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. The inclusion of 'reason' and 'divine' in the same sentence is a contradiction in terms. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. This is my point. You hold your position in contradiction to reason, but keep trying to use 'reason' to make your point. You can't have it both ways. Either embrace 'reason' or give it up and say, 'I believe this because I want to' and stop trying to find reasons for faith. There aren't any.
If this is not so, then why would innumerable generations of human beings by now continue to be interested in problems of truth?
Because 'truth' is what we survive by. "Truth" is concepts and thoughts that are coherent, are in line, represent, describe, explain, and help a person live, in REALITY !!!
Not Jesus on the cross, not Adam and Eve, not Original Sin, - - - - eating enough tomorrow to survive until the next day. Not being killed by Saddaam. Going to work and earning enough that I don't have to beg at the trough of the public dole to feed my kid. Reality. Reality. Reality. That which you cannot evade, or in doing so, you will die. And as I said before, there is truth and there is truth and there is truth. The Zen Buddhist (which I studied for a long time) believes he knows 'truth' just as much as you do. But somebody is right and somebody is wrong, you cannot both be right at the same time. And then there is Hindus and,God I could go on for hours. I WANTED to know, I been through all this stuff. What if you are all wrong? What if the answer is under your very nose but you are all just too blinded by your beliefs to see?
Circular reasoning???? Yegads, man! If you want circular reasoning, go check out Georg Hegel.
Been there,done that. Mediocre at best.
This is probably the hardest part for a skeptical secularist like yourself to entertain, let alone credit as to having any good purpose. Yet it is precisely this point that I would invite you to try in your meditations.
Don't be so quick to judge me, little girl. I am not a 'skeptical humanist', as if those words have any meaning. You don't know me that well. I have had many years thinking 'out of the box' and you are still inside one of the many boxes that I left years ago.
Well, if something “simply is,” that suggests to me it didn’t get there “out of its own powers.”
Suggestion to you is not evidence to me.
Then again, I think Aristotle was right when he said effects have causes; thus creatures have creators. Just stands to reason, I say.
So now you want to use reason, which you rejected as insufficient to understand deity, to prove deity? So which is it? Reason vs Religion? The name of this thread. You, because you reject reason, can stand on either side of the issue whenever you wish. You can reject reason when it doesn't support your cause and embrace it when it does. Will you be my attorney when I go into court and plead that I didn't steal anything because stealing is a concept based upon evidence and no one can prove that anything that ever happened is true because we don't know the mind of God? There is no where to go from here. Other than, if you believe God will heal your son from diabetes and He doesn't and the child dies, you didn't conform to the laws of reality. Happens every day.
God is “beyond logic” in the precise sense that He is the Source and Standard of logic.
Then God is the source of the very means against Him. Funny, because you are at the point of the founding fathers in their understanding of God.
Reason, the only oracle of man. Reason was considered the ultimate gift from God.
How far we have come.
I must stop for now, LogicWings.
But it is late for me too. And I have more too say, But I will relent. Until tomorrow.