Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3
In this case, for "religion" substitute philosophy, worldview, etc. in Bennett's description. Every adult has some view of "what it's all about." And, whether it's is a religion or not, they may still fit Bennet's description.
In confusing (read: passing off) what could be at best a Deistic concept of divinity, as the same as the highly anthropomorphous, interventionist, mythology- and superstition-laced concepts of divinity that the ancients developed?
Your concept of God clearly operates on a time scale. 7-day creation, et al. Do you dispute this? If you don't, then this feature alone causes even this version of divinity to have a finite existence - and therefore, inapplicability of the 'timeless' badge. How can this god, which, besides performing fantastic miracles that is impossible to conceive as possible in this day and age (living in fish for 3 days, talking animals, etc., vs. an amputee growing back a severed limb suddenly) be reconciled with the significantly non-anthropomorphous, sublime, formless divinity that's basically Deistic, barring an honest admission?
To me, it is evident that blurring these sharp contradictions to the point of obfuscation is what allows many to rationalise their superstitions.
This phase transformation stuff is only hypothesis.
As mentioned earlier, neither reason nor evidence can confirm that the energy conservation law existed infinitely into the past.
Reason cannot confirm it—the law is not self evident. Do you really not understand this concept?
(If you’re getting your information from an apparent physicist recently interviewed on NPR, I would caution you to pay attention to the end of the interview where he admits having another, unrelated agenda.)
First, on relativism (not relativity). Liberals have it wrong. Their entire worldview is based on the false premise that absolute truth doesn’t exist. For this reason, they have no real access to rational discourse.
I would ask you take a look at a graph of an asymptote—it’s a perfect illustration of the foolishness of progressives (given the context of my statements above).
As for the rest of your responses, let’s go back a few years. Bill Clinton: “That depends on what the meaning of the word is is.” A moderately clever remark—if it had been uttered by a slightly intelligent twelve year old.
This is exactly what you’re doing, when you draw new lines in the sand each time your latest argument faces defeat, and when you question the definition of the word spiritual, or of God.
In any other conversation, many times in your life, you make use of these terms with no hint that you’re afraid they don’t have meaning. But here, as a licensed relativist, you suddenly put them into the category of “undefined” only because you think it suits your needs. Somehow, you’ve been duped into using the double tongue of a lawyer while convincing yourself you’re “not leftist.”
Again, relativism is foolishness in every sense of the word.
On the reliability of the Bible, and on evidence for the truth of Christian doctrine, look up the works of Craig Blomberg, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, and Gary Habermas.
Like scientists and laymen, the religious cover a wide area.
There are folks who are superstitious in all areas. And a magical worldview can be found among all types. There is bogus religion - and bogus science.
Religious texts go back thousands of years, oral even further. Of course they are written within their context. But man was not stupid back then, and wisdom is not something invented during the Age of Reason.
It is a mistake to denigrate all religions and religious as superstitious or ignorant.
True story: Many years back, I went to a retreat at a Jesuit seminary. In the hall was a small table with pictures and biographies of those who would be entering the seminary in the coming year. Of the five, two were physicists; one was a quite accomplished quantum physicist.
What became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, professor of physics, astronomer at the University of Louvain - and a Roman Catholic priest and honorary prelate.
Science and religion, physics and metaphysics, are different areas, but not necessarily incompatible, and certainly not born enemies.
“Where the problem is” often, as I see it, is the category error of assigning all truth to religion - or to science - or to philosophy. The search for knowledge can occur, with many similar methods used, in all these spheres.
Another problem is that in order to communicate, we need some common base of knowledge which is very often lacking on one side or the other.
For more complete dialogue, we need to have even more knowledge of, and respect for, the fields of those with whom we discuss. Without both, the alternative is to limit ourselves to a smaller common ground, such as reason/logic - as I’ve tried to do on this thread.
thanks for your reply.
Ridiculous! Never!
"I can read Greek.... I am done with your and your "scholarship." Waste someone else's time.
I used and referenced both Jewish works for Hebrew and standard translations of Koine Greek to demonstrate that what you asserted was false. That means it's really the "scholarship" of the Jews translating Hebrew for their own Bibles and the myriad of folks translating Koine Greek and Russian that you have a problem with.
Now you've posted more rubbish along with a dismissal.
"Somehow it(πρὸς) became "with" ONLY in English translations.
Oh? " I have just about had enough of you. I can read Greek. Here is the Greek text of John 1:1, word for word:
Ἐν [in] ἀρχῇ [origin, beginning] ἦν [was] ὁ [the] λόγος [saying, word] καὶ [and] ὁ [the] λόγος [saying, word] ἦν [was] πρὸς [towards] τὸν [the] θεόν [God] καὶ [and] θεὸς [a God] ἦν [was] ὁ [the] λόγος [saying, word]"
Here's what you copied and pasted as if it was your own work: "(2) The word πρὸς (pros) means towards, or relative to, in the presence of, at, etc. You chose twords, which is a ridiculous choice to make from the possibilities listed. "in the presence of" is also listed and it means WITH.
"In addition to this, the Vulgate (Latin) translation of Greek, the Bible used by the western world for over one thousand years reads "In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum." Latin preposition apud means among, in the presence of,
Oh Heavens look! "in the presence of" is there also, and it means WITH. So, the word with also appears in the Vulgate and it's been known and understood as such for thousands of years.
"The Slavonic translation, the most accurate translation with regard to Greek (because Church Slavonic was created by Greeks specifically for a wored-for-word and concept-for-concept liturgical and biblical language) reads у Бога (by or at God).Let's see... John 1:1
Slovo Zhizny: "
В начале было Слово, и Слово было у Бога, и Слово было Богом
to English: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"
OR Russian Synod. "В начале было Слово, и Слово было у Бога, и Слово было Бог
to English: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God"
Слово было у translates: word was with
Слово было translates to word was
было translates to was
Богом, Бог, у Бога translates: God, God, God.
Here's a neutral translator (Google), unless of course they've conspired with the Catholic's to thwart your efforts to spread the truth.
"And now you spout some Protestant literal translation to me? I am done with your and your "scholarship." Waste someone else's time.
Oh look! Everyone, regardless of the final language translates John 1:1 as "...THE WORD WAS WITH GOD AND THE WORD WAS GOD" They all think John wrote, "JESUS WAS GOD". ... probably all just a conspiracy against your efforts to spread the truth.
Right next to your talking snakes and donkeys...
For example, the story of Jonah and the great fish (a favorite target of scripture scoffers) provides a literal lesson in obedience...
That can be conveyed with less than a fairytale-like story.
even if we do not understand how Jonah could spend three days in the belly of a great fish
So, you believe that he did? How is that different than believing in pink unicorns on Jupiter? Reportedly, some men blame it all on the woman. You seem to blame it on that poor serpent. Both of you, it seems to me, miss the point of the story
Regardless of the blame game, the central story on which Christianity rests is a fantastic tale of a talking snake. Or do you sitll deny it in desperation?
But eternity isn't. You can't have change in something that is changeless.
Do you ahve his exact words?
Your concept of God clearly operates on a time scale. 7-day creation, et al. Do you dispute this?
In my hopelessly limited concept, God affects the finite, temporal, causal universe. There's a difference.
The Bible was not written from within a modern world view, neither is it a science text. To use it for such, makes as much sense as using Feynman's Red Books to learn about the meaning of life.
What makes them "true"?
There is absolute truth but it's not accessible to human minds because we don't know everything there is to know.
Instead of wasting your keystrokes on empty personal labels, why don't you just tell me what is spiritual and what God is?
In any other conversation, many times in your life, you make use of these terms with no hint that you’re afraid they don’t have meaning
Really? Presumptuous aren't we?.
On the reliability of the Bible, and on evidence for the truth of Christian doctrine, look up the works of Craig Blomberg, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, and Gary Habermas
Why should I take your word or the words of other ordinary human beings?
A portion of Summa Theologica is below.
The reason that it is an error to apply "all that exists has a cause other than itself" to the first cause is because, obviously, then it would not be the first cause. It would have a cause and on and on, and "in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity." The basic infinite regress, first cause argument.
I think your statement may be a misstatement of: "There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself…"
The first cause cannot be caused by itself or anything outside itself. It can't be caused at all; it can only be UNcaused.
From Summa Theologica:
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways…Many thanks for your posts..The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
No, not hypothesis. It is theory supported by a great deal of evidence.
"As mentioned earlier, neither reason nor evidence can confirm that the energy conservation law existed infinitely into the past.
Reason is sufficient, because there is more than sufficient evidence for the law.
"If you’re getting your information from an apparent physicist...
I do my own physics.
"Reason cannot confirm it—the law... Do you really not understand this concept?
I understand it just fine. In order for your assertion to mean any more than nothing, you must show that energy can be created, or destroyed.
I think Bennet was using "believers" in the pejorative, I just added "true" to it.
"…But God is uncaused, as shown above, since He is the first efficient cause."I should point out again, that while Aquinas identifies the first cause as God, I'm not accepting that as a requirement in this discussion, call it what you wish. I'm using the generic for "first cause argument" and including Aquinas' work and others on both the argument and objections.
More spunketism lies. In #1197 you wrote "All that matters is what Jesus said and whether I believe that. That's all I'm concerned with."
That means it's really the "scholarship" of the Jews translating Hebrew for their own Bibles and the myriad of folks translating Koine Greek and Russian that you have a problem with.
I have no problems with original sources, just with faulty and misleading English translations.
Here's what you copied and pasted as if it was your own work
It is my work, word for word. That's why I didn't reference it.
Ridiculous? Why, because all English Bibles say "with?" Well not all. The reason English Bibles say "with" is because "at" (pros) is awkward in English, as is toward. The Bibles are written so they can be read like prose. That necessitates some changes and unfortunately some of these grammatical necessities often change the meaning of the whole verse.
Слово было у translates: word was with
Case in point. The Russian preposition 'y' (u) doesn;t mean with but at, towards, in, near, among, etc. but never "with"! Russian with is 'c' (s).
I was actually wrong about the Church Slavonic version of John 1:1(which is not Russian, but is closely related to Russian and to my native Serbian). I assumed it would be the same as in Russian (u Boga), but it is actually exactly as it reads in Greek: къ Богу (k Bogu). The preposition 'к' means to, by, towards, against, etc., just the way the Greek verson reads.
Here's a neutral translator (Google), unless of course they've conspired with the Catholic's to thwart your efforts to spread the truth
I don't need it. I can read and understand Russian and Church Slavonic. They are very close to my native language, and CS is the liturgical languges used to this day in Eastern churches and I am fully fmailair with the liturgy.
Oh look! Everyone, regardless of the final language translates John 1:1 as "...THE WORD WAS WITH GOD AND THE WORD WAS GOD" They all think John wrote, "JESUS WAS GOD". ... probably all just a conspiracy against your efforts to spread the truth.
You know, being intentionally myopic is not very smart. You are using only Christian sources, which are doctirnally hamronized to support Christain beliefs. using thema s any profo is circualr reasonsing.
There are many other sources which disagree with all your doctrinally tainted English Bibles. But the real problem with John 1:1 that I owuld be cocnerned wiht if I were you is not whether the Word was with, at, near, by, towards, or in presence of God, but whether it says that the word was a God rather than God.
Even worse, either way, John 1:1 completely destroys your idea that the Word and God are one and the same "person".
I was asking for A’s exact wording of his premise.
I’m sorry, which premise isn’t in the quoted portion?
If we look at the efficient causes as a string of events along a closed loop, we can see that it is possible to have efficient causation without the need for the uncaused first cause.
I think Aquinas' argument breaks down when he posits that there can be no infinite (circular) regress. That assumption necessitates a stop-gap fist cause which itself cannot be caused, but which violates A's premise that all that exists had to be caused.
If all that exists must have been caused by something prior, then first cause cannot exist, by definition. Aquinas unequivocally ties existence; thus, if you are not caused, you can't exist (on your own); that forces a conclusion that first cause not only doesn't but cannot exist (because nothing caused it to exist)!
FWIW
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.