Posted on 01/23/2010 4:09:32 PM PST by NYer
Where and what is the axiom in my learning that the stove is hot by touching it?
How is that the same as starting with an axiom, "which is 'self-evident' to me,'" as you put it?
You write "I aver that the Truth of Reality is in-built, from the moment of Creation, via Logos, Alpha and Omega."
Based on what evidence?
I believe the language of mathematics/logics authoritatively expresses this Reality
I couldn't disagree more. The Hubble Space Telescope is a living example of this. Someone trusted the numbers more than reality and the Telescope was launched with 'myopic' optics. On paper, however, the instrument was 'flawless.'
That is, it seems you propose yourself as the "measure" of all that is.
And who isn't? But I don't force my imagination on others as self-evident truth.
To which I might say: Well, this may be the measure of you; but not necessarily of the rest of us. God have mercy....
When the "rest of us" say things like "On the other hand I start with an axiom, which is "self-evident" to me,"I would say the "rest of us" are no different.
All I can say (suggest) is that, to the extent you put the needful criteria of your self first, you occlude God's Truth.
I assume you you believe the Bible, which says that all have fallen short of the glory of God, which would include both of us as well. If you are going to judge others, bear in mind that perhaps your ego also occludes God's Truth, whatever it may be?
You know, I am so amazed how readily self-professed Christians can accuse, indeed, condemn, someone who is not on their sheet of music.
My point about axioms is that they are not arbitrary, nor subjectively determined in any sense
Oh?
The crucial point about the mathematical axiom is that it is a universal by definition
But it's not real; it's hypothetical.
That is, applying to all times and places whatsoever, for all time.
Hypothetically speaking...
Hellow Quix, how's the weather where you are?
Quix, all I said "Yet those who are deprived of the gift are condemned." To which you accuse me "condemning" God! Where in my statement is the condemnation of God, or better yet "whole convoluted pile of rationalized UNBiblical intellectualizations?"
It's amazing that you can post so much and say nothing of substance or relevance.
Our judgments on this thread concern beliefs, spirituality, theology, philosophy, worldviews and paradigms.
And we are polar opposites to you on most of these. Christianity is not compatible with metaphysical naturalism.
Concerning mathematics and universals, every time a mathematician uses a variable in a formula it attests to the universality of the formula.
And we are polar opposites on mathematical paradigms. The Platonist paradigm says the geometry exists and the mathematician comes along and discovers it. The Aristotlean paradigm says the mathematician invents the geometry.
Based on what evidence?
But if a person precludes God on principle under metaphysical naturalism, he cannot receive even that evidence.
Very well put Mark. For instance in designing tarditional aspheric correctors for astronomical optics known as "Schimidt Correctors" we can apply 4th order formula for an approximate shape, usually sufficient for most applications, of the type x (deviation from flattness) = a + b4.
If the design calls for higher precision for special application cameras (due to presence of higher order abberations), higher order correction expressions are applied. In fact the expression can be carried ad infinitum, i.e. a + b4 + c6 + d8 ... + yn, but it is generally true that beyond the 6th order the formula becomes a theoretical curiosity untenable in practice.
If I presneted the production shop work shop supervisor with anything higher than the 6th order request, he would laugh at me!
Beyond certain this point mathematical theory no longer describes reality accessible to us. It becomes meaningless.
Reality remains what it is, whether we can discern it or not, but if ti doesn't apply to us it is meaningless. hence the wisdom that the world is the way it is even if we don;t understand it. That which we can not detect and experience is meaningless and irrelevant.
The degree to which mathematics describe reality accurately is dictated by our reality and not mathematics, because mathematics is a tool devised by man and applied to his reality and for his benefit!
I always used to say to apprentices learning how to make optics that trying to make an optical flat to 1/100 of a wavelength is an exercise in futility given that ordinary interference tests can fairly accurately measure about 1/20 wavelength.
At such precision even breathing on (never mind touching) the optical surface alters that precision by a wide margin. TO appreciate what I am talking about 1 wavelength (λ) = 0.000002 inches in yellow sodium emission of 550 nm, so 1/20 wave = 1–8, or 0.00000001 inches.
Then what is God?
Rom 1:20
Paul doens't say Godhead but theiotes, that is — divinity or divine nature. Is he suggesting believers not onyl see [sic] the invisible but also understand divine nature????
Wrong perspective. We are condemned already
But only those God gives the ears and the eyes will be saved, by God's choice. Maybe he didn't make neough...
He that believeth on him is not condemned
But you can't believe unless it is has been "given."
It is by God's grace that any are saved
Then we wouldn't need the eyes and the ears, would we? And why does the Bible say in another place "work out your own salvation" and suggests we need to find the narrow path that leads there.
No it's not. It's an meaning spiritually.
More imprtantly, CHRIST never mentioned it . The term is a Pauline innovation. It appears nowhere in the OT or the NT except in 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Revelation 11:8.
Likewise, your promotion of eignosis as biblical is somewhat misleading, imo. Like pnematikos, this one doesn't appear in the Gospels or the OT. That's because it is yet another Pauline innovation never spoken by Christ. It is also encountered in Pualine-like deuterocnaonicals, Hebrews, and 2 Peter, as well as in 8 of the Pauline Epistles.
Both words are a latter development in the Christian thought unknown in the Gospel accounts, which means theydid not exist as concepts or teaching material.
Have increasingly observed and experienced as I've aged . . .
any 'improvement' in thinking and understanding
seems to come along lines of simplicity . . .
Except you become as a little child, you shall in no wise enter . . .
Yet, there is something about the carnal heart of unredeemed man that compulsively HAS to complicate it.
Methinks that the enemy's role in pushing, urging us to complicate it . . . is along the lines of . . . ego, arrogance, subtrafuge, obsfucation, deception . . .
Complex things hide things easier & more. Silverware that's totally simple & plain costs more because blemishes show up immediately, easily.
When we allow the enemy to get us all bound up in our underwear over complex postulations, what-if's, parsing to the nth degree what began with God as simple straight-forward declarations . . . it ends up a corollary of many words leads to sin.
The Pharisees were PhD masters at parsing words and justifying with lengthy hyper-intellectualized and masterfully erudite SOUNDING rationalizations all manner of burdensome hoop-jumping in order to be considered right, rational, 'righteous.'
And their grandest achievement was to be labeled white-washed tombs by The Creator of All that Is.
Real grandly erudite & logical, that.
Except one become as a child . . . laying aside all one's 'learned' as a clever 'mature' 'adult.' . . . all the bias, all the smugness, all the brilliant conclusions, all the self-justifications, all the lawyerly expositions about how God couldn't have this and had to do that and must now do thus and so according to 'MY' prescription and construction on reality . . .
one shall in no wise enter in . . .
a little child that simply says, YES, DADDY . . . AND CONTINUALLY SAYS 'YES, DADDY' . . . JOYFULLY, CONFIDENTLY, ABANDONEDLY.
Ahhhhhh . . . abandon . . .
The self-righteous, intellectual, self-justified, self-rationalized, intellectual kings of their own pointy mountains CANNOT abandon to God Almighty . . .
That would mean losing, giving up, being without
That would mean ALMIGHTY GOD was in control of them, their heart, their priorities, agenda, being, THEIR ALL.
That seems to be intolerable for folks unwilling to become as a little child.
. . . MERCIFULLY, there is NO other route to Heaven.
Thanks for your kind reply.
I couldn’t disagree more. The Hubble Space Telescope is a living example of this. Someone trusted the numbers more than reality and the Telescope was launched with ‘myopic’ optics. On paper, however, the instrument was ‘flawless.’
###
IIRC, . . . that describes an error
WITH the numbers.
NOT an error OF the numbers.
Numbers are pretty basic critters.
The fallible humans goofed WITH the numbers. The numbers just sat there—puzzle pieces in the humans’ hands.
New Mexico sun, mostly . . . as usual for this time of year.
Some were complaining about lack of same for several weeks of rain, snow and cloudiness . . . unusually long period of same for NM. Usually 2-3 days at a time is all we have. I guess it was a few weeks or so.
I hope and trust you are warm and comfortable wherever you are.
Stack up all your pontifications about God.
Assertions were made on the other side about a contingency God set up.
You noted that those not fulfilling God’s requirement in said contingency would be condemned . . . as though said condemnation was somehow unfitting, unfair.
That implies the God behind said condemnation was unfair.
I’m sure you can weasel about in terms of what was explicitly said.
Yet, you are plenty smart to know what the implications were of what you knowingly wrote and wrote for what purpose.
It’s amazing that you can post so much and pretend and deny the clear implications of so many words so brazenly and glibly.
Hoo Yeah! and then you better put a helmet on!
Honestly bb and Ag there are many times I've heard the click of a ratchet when I read your posts 8-)I would aspire to your level of understanding but I feel more destined for the rational craziness of bro' Quix!
You're all a great blessing to this lurker...please do carry on!
Thanks for your kind words.
God’s best to you and yours.
Sorry dear kosta, the Scripture coincides with the actual life a believer has. One can deny it, but when one has it and rejoices in remaining in fellowship with God, so He continues His work, it is intuitively obvious despite any declaration by any other man.
Attempts to reason it away are simply attempts to distract with counterfeit reasoning. Reasoning with my heart, I have no doubt as to the veracity of PNEUMATIKOS provided by God the Holy Spirit, nor GNOSIS and EPIGNOSIS.
Luke Timothy and Peter also speak of GNOSIS as well as EPIGNOSIS.
Mark definitely speaks to the perception Jesus Christ had in his human spirit of the reasonings in the hearts of the scribes and Pharisees in Mark 2:6-10.
This is understood once one has been given a human spirit by God the Holy Spirit and He provides such perception.
Considering the Church Age didn’t begin until that time, marked by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer, the observation of this not being previously recognized is not surprising. It couldn;t have been for there had not yet been the perfect sacrifice to give God the liberty in His immutable nature to regenerate the human spirit in the believer.
Nevertheless, it was possible for Jesus Christ to have that PNEUMATIKOS and is recorded in Mark 2:6-10.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" - I Cor 2;9
Just so, the God that hides himself.. (from view)..
When my glory passes by, I will put you(Moses) in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. -Ex33;22
AND so was it, when God MOONED Moses...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.