Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3
It should be obvious that there is a difference between imagining something and using reason/logic.
And that there are different degrees of "knowledge." Even within reason logic. For example the difference between inference and deduction.
If we reduce what is "known" to it's firmest level, we end up with sense knowledge and even that is not pure. In addition, with that limitation, you and I could not have this discussion.
"Dogs learn behavior just like we do.
The display of compassion shown by the dog in the flick was not learned. The compassion arose from the dog's own mind.
"But mentally they are on a 2-year-old level, and a 2-year-old doe snot relaly know what comparison is, at least not intrinsically.
You probably meant compassion. Both compassion and comparison are concepts that one does not have to ponder to be motivated by, or to act accordingly. Dogs make comparisons just as they act motivated by feelings of love and compassion. That's one of the purposes of the limbic system.
"Oh, so Gen 1"26-27 is literal and Gen 3 is a parable."
Gen 1, 2 and 3 are parable.
Re: It is by Free Will that folks determine if they live in Heaven. Matthew 12:32,
"And there are many other instances in the Bible where the authors declare that God has decided before the world was even created on the fate of each and every soul.
There are none. God's gift of life included their sovereignty of will.
Re: "Doctrinal decisions made by past councils do not determine truth.
"But you do? LOL."
The truth of any claims, or matters is determined by a rational examination of the relevant evidence. Democracy is not a logical operation.
"...what Christian establishment declared in the 4th century to be Christian faith, namely Three Hypostases (Persons) in one Nature (Godhead)."
I'll be limited by any particular thinkers and their declarations. What is written in Gen 1 about man being made in the Image of God must hold. What was determined by some democratic process in the 4th century on the matter is irrelevant if they missed the fact that God is a Person. It makes absolutely no sense that a composition of persons is not a person, or that man which is an instantiation of the Image, is not a person, because the Image does not represent a person.
"The NT, however, states unequivocally that Jesus was raised by God. No writer claims, after the event, that he raised himself."
John 2:19, "Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
Should read: I'll not be limited...
“I disagree. Objective reasoning is a posteriori; subjective is a priori. The former is phenomenological, and the latter ontological. Thye are antonyms of eahc other, and cnanot be conflated.”
You misunderstand, entirely. Let’s make it simple: a priori knowledge is not the same as knowledge from faith. A priori reasoning is strictly academic, and it means that the truth of something is self-evident, requiring no empirical verification. Faith is a spiritual matter, resulting from a form of communication with God.
“If a vast majority of historians—according to a very partial Evangelical professor in Lynchburg, Va—accept the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection, it is more likely because of the sheer weight (and sensitivity) of the Christian tradition in the western civilization than any standard, verifiable, historical evidence.”
You’re saying that you have no problem believing that a vast majority of historians will form their professional opinions because of pressure from Christian doctrine, rather than rely on conventional methods of determining historicity. Think about that. It’s a perfect illustration of relativism at work, because at any other time you would accept what everyone else accepts—that the majority of historians are fairly objective and reliable.
Relativism is what makes people (usually, though not always, leftists) keep moving the bar. For example, you first claim to doubt my argument because I haven’t been specific enough with the supporting evidence. Here, you say that even if my supporting evidence is specific enough, it isn’t valid because the vast majority of historians aren’t credible.
It’s like trying to argue with a liberal that Obama is a Marxist. The liberal says “that’s crazy, he’s not a Marxist.” And as the evidence increasingly shows he is very likely at least a Marxist sympathizer, the liberal then changes his argument to “Well, Marxism really isn’t so bad anyway.”
Ideological relativism is not the same as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. It’s somewhat amusing (though tragic) the way liberals confuse themselves into believing that because 1) Einstein was a genius, that somehow 2) liberals are also geniuses because they can mouth the word “relativity,” and that they can go on to claim that 3) all truth is relative.
Number 4, of course, is the conclusion that since truth is relative, it has no permanence and what is said to be true today can be false tomorrow. This is the origin of blatant liberal hypocrisy and the liberal practice of moving the bar around. They take a particular position against an opponent’s argument, and later this same position is contradicted, denied, reversed or considered meaningless. Relativism is nothing more than an excuse to lie. Truly, the nature of relativism renders all of leftist ideology meaningless.
I’m not specifically calling you a leftist. I’m saying you use a tactic that is the foundation of the way leftists perpetrate their ideology.
In his investigation of the events surrounding the Resurrection, Gary Habermas (The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus) uses a “minimal facts” approach. This means he does not assume Biblical inspiration or even reliability of the New Testament, but views the New Testament as a work of literature, and accepts only data which are well evidenced and accepted by nearly every scholar, even the most skeptical ones.
Consider this question: In the process of forming your opinion, do you think it’s better to seek more depth and more detail—such as looking at what multiple scholars have said, and examining the nature and methods of determining historicity—or do you prefer to save time and to base your conclusions merely on what seems at first glance to be correct, before knowing the facts?
The ability to do work.
It's divided by what energy? What does the energy represent?
"The ability to do work.
No. For instance, you can not do work with a proton. The energy is what the particle itself consists of. In this case, it represents the rest mass of the particle, mo. One can not do work with the particle unless the particle is destroyed, or a reaction occurs between particles that causes a release of energy. The particle's mass is then reduced in an amount equal to the energy released. The energy then ends up as other particles, or an increase in some product particle's mass.
The equation is E=moc2. The speed of light can be assigned a value of one. Then it's clear that the particle's rest mass is equal to it's energy.
Thanks for that.
But we’ve strayed quite a bit off topic—we’re not arguing over the definition of quantum energy. Seems a bit odd to get so far into a separate debate.
Let me remind you of our discussion: the law of conservation of energy does not validate itself. Its truth is not self evident. The only way we can know it is true is through empirical investigation.
At question is not whether energy can be created or destroyed. We know it cannot, because this is what observation shows.
What we have is: neither reason nor evidence can confirm that the energy conservation law existed infinitely into the past.
But evidence demonstrates that laws of physics during the Big Bang were very different.
Very close to it. See, nothing exists if it's not composed of energy. All of existence is energy and without it, nothing exists. Energy and it's properties are what allows for a real instance of anything to exist.
"But evidence demonstrates that laws of physics during the Big Bang were very different."
They were not. The laws of physics were the same. I said the appearence of this universe can be seen as a phase transformation of energy. That's a simple model that ignores details such as those of string theory. It's the same kind of calculation that one might do for boiling water w/o considering the details involved in nucleation. Though in either case they can be considered. If you have evidence that the laws of physics were different at any time, then present it.
"What we have is: neither reason nor evidence can confirm that the energy conservation law existed infinitely into the past.
Reason is sufficient. It must be kept in mind that energy can be represented by it's inverse, which is time. Time is a dimension. Space itself is energy. Space permeates the vacuum, which has more energy/cm3 than exists as positive energy in the entire universe. If energy could be created, or destroyed, then it would not be what it is. Do you understand that A, where A is a quantity of energy, must equal A and never not equal to A? The BB is simply a phase transformation of energy. Regardless of scale, or details, phase transformaitons never involve the creation of, or the destruction of energy. An energy transformation must even occur to cause the BB, regardless of any details.
To end this silly semantics game, let's just say that Aquinas suggested that all that exists had to be caused, except the first cause. In that case the first cause cannot exist.
Aquinas' argument is self-refuting, and I am not the only one who says so.
It should be obvious that there is a difference between imagining something and using reason/logic
As long as the reasoning and logic relate to objective reality, and not imaginary abstractions.
And that there are different degrees of "knowledge."
We either "know" or we believe. There is knowledge and then there is belief.
If we reduce what is "known" to it's firmest level, we end up with sense knowledge and even that is not pure. In addition, with that limitation, you and I could not have this discussion
We all have defective, incomplete or imperfect knowledge. No one knows everything. To call what we don't know "knowledge" is presumptuous and deceitful.
Our discussion is based on our limited knowledge and understanding. And our reasoning is equally defective.
[Reason/logic has to conform to observable reality] More correctly, it has to not be falsified by observable reality - and follow the rules of reason/logic. Theoretical and experimental science does this constantly.
Everything we "know" is based on our experience, and—faulty a sit may be—our interpretation of it.
" θεότης ", theotes is found in Colossians 2:9. It's a noun which translates as Deity.
Col 2:9, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," Theotes refers to the Deity who is, in all His fullness a Person - Jesus. God, the Deity, the Theotes, the Godhead is a Person.
How do you know this?
You do see your second statement here is a non sequitur at best, a contradiction at worst, yes?
Whether God can or can't is not the issue. The Bible calls man an image of God. If man is an image (representation) of God then man images or represents God, the way your photograph images/represents you.
The display of compassion shown by the dog in the flick was not learned. The compassion arose from the dog's own mind.
You know dog's mind? Can you fly like Peter Pan too? What else can you do? LOL.
You probably meant compassion
Yes I did; the spellchecker somehow changed it.
That's one of the purposes of the limbic system.
Really? What planet do you live on?
Gen 1, 2 and 3 are parable.
Then man is really not an image of God but a figure of speech.
There are none. God's gift of life included their sovereignty of will
If, as you say "It is by Free Will that folks determine if they live in Heaven" then man saves himself. More unChristian beliefs from you. What sect or cult do you belong to anyway?
The truth of any claims, or matters is determined by a rational examination of the relevant evidence.
Everyone says that. What they see as rational is their way.
Democracy is not a logical operation.
What is illogical about it?
What is written in Gen 1 about man being made in the Image of God must hold
Why? You said it's just a parable. It's not a literal image, but a symbolic one?
It makes absolutely no sense that a composition of persons is not a person, or that man which is an instantiation of the Image, is not a person, because the Image does not represent a person.
Why would God have to be subject to human standards? You must have missed the part of the Bible where God supposedly says his thoughts and ways are not like man's.
It makes absolutely no sense that a composition of persons is not a person
In the Old Testament, God never said he was a person, nor did he ever admit he is not "a man to change [his] mind..." What makes you think God, as he truly is, would have to conform to your idea of what he ought to be? LOL. We only know he is not supposed to be like anything human.
John 2:19, "Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
And this is supposed to prove what? It only proves that John is talking past Paul and Luke and Peter, etc.
Acts 2:24 "But God raised Him up again"
Acts 2:32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses."
Acts 3:15 "but put to death the Prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses."
Acts 3:26 "For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways."
Acts 4:10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health.
Acts 5:30 " The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross."
Acts 10:40 "God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible"
Acts 13:30 "But God raised Him from the dead;"
Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus
Acts 13:37 "but He whom God raised did not undergo decay."
Romans 7:4 "Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God."
Romans 8:34 "who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us."
Romans 10:9 "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;"
1 Corinthians 6:14 "Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power."
1 Corinthians 15:15 "Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised."
Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead,"
Colossians 2:12 "having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."
1 Peter 1:21 "who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God."
Overwhelmingly, the New Testament testifies that Jesus was raised by God and didn't raise himself. Clearly, the Gospel references to alleged Jesus' words that he would rebuild the Temple in three days is not a reference to his resurrection, or the Bible contradicts itself big time!
θεότης means the state of being God. If it is a state then it's not the being or a person, but a state of that being. Humanity is a state of being human, theotes is the state of being divine.
Cute. I know that a hot stove-top burns. I don't know if pink unicorns live (and talk) on Jupiter, but I can imagine it, theorize about it, believe it, etc.
"θεότης means the state of being God. If it is a state then it's not the being or a person, but a state of that being. Humanity is a state of being human, theotes is the state of being divine.
Your link agrees with everyone else and translates the word as Deity. Deity is a being a person that holds a particular position, or state. One can not simply be a state.
Deity is not translated as a person, but as a state of being divine, or being God. It has nothing to do with a "position" you "hold."
One can not simply be a state
No one is not, but one exists in a state, or in a condition that defines him.
"Why? You said it's just a parable. It's not a literal image, but a symbolic one?
I said Gen 1 is parable. A parable is a story used to convey, or to communicate some truth. A few particular truths conveyed are that God is a person that created the universe and man in His Image. Another is that male and female are from the same Image. The truths that were not conveyed are the myriad of details regarding what was done. ...like evolution, neurology, physics...
Re: "It makes absolutely no sense that a composition of persons is not a person, or that man which is an instantiation of the Image, is not a person, because the Image does not represent a person.
" Why would God have to be subject to human standards? You must have missed the part of the Bible where God supposedly says his thoughts and ways are not like man's.
God didn't create Himself.
"In the Old Testament, God never said he was a person,"
That's, because He knew there were some folks that would pick up on that all by themselves by using the gifts He gave them. The rest get a facepalm.
Re: "John 2:19, "Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
"And this is supposed to prove what? It only proves that John is talking past Paul and Luke and Peter, etc.
No, not John. It's Jesus that's talking. Read the first words in the verse again and try to comprehend them. In order to understand anything in the Bible, His words must be known and understood before anything else is attempted, because He is God and the others can not overrule Him. Else, you'd never know, or understand. I already pointed out that some of the laws Moses gave in the name of God came from Moses according to God.
"Overwhelmingly, the New Testament testifies that Jesus was raised by God and didn't raise himself. Clearly, the Gospel references to alleged Jesus' words that he would rebuild the Temple in three days is not a reference to his resurrection, or the Bible contradicts itself big time!
Christians believe Jesus is God, so there's no contradiction.
Only a Person can be God.
Re: "One can not simply be a state
" No one is not, but one exists in a state, or in a condition that defines him.One is a Person.
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.