Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[Chriliman]

The claims about Jesus' life, etc., are discussed in the NT.

They're also discussed in a different way in the OT. The OT prophesied what Jesus would do and the prophecies came true in the NT.

I'm struggling to see your point.

 

[bhsmte]

They're also discussed in a different way in the OT. The OT prophesied what Jesus would do and the prophecies came true in the NT.

I'm struggling to see your point.

Yes, you are struggling.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, you are struggling.

Nice jab!

 

[bhsmte]

Nice jab!

You said it and i simply agreed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No I don't, but you did say that you fully understand reality. Should I dig up the quote? It wasn't too far back. Maybe it's your logic that is faulty?

I don't know what you're referring to here. Feel free to show where my logic has been faulty.

Since you agree that we shouldn't necessarily be able to explain the entire universe...your earlier post about it being "extraordinary" that we exist as beings capable of reflecting on "how and why we exist" appears faulty.

Why wouldn't we be capable of such things given that we don't know everything?

 

[Chriliman]

I don't know what you're referring to here. Feel free to show where my logic has been faulty.

Since you agree that we shouldn't necessarily be able to explain the entire universe...your earlier post about it being "extraordinary" that we exist as beings capable of reflecting on "how and why we exist" appears faulty.

Why wouldn't we be capable of such things given that we don't know everything?

We currently cannot explain the entire universe, but in the future we might be able to. However, even at that point the one who understands the entire universe would have to explain it to each individual in a way that would make sense to them and that person listening would have to accept it as true.

A good question is why didn't we evolve to be capable of knowing everything? Or are we still evolving to that point? If we do reach a point to where everyone can know everything then this would prove that there is an absolute eternal truth to everything and logically we should all be trying to find what that truth is in order to prevent being deceived.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We currently cannot explain the entire universe, but in the future we might be able to. However, even at that point the one who understands the entire universe would have to explain it to each individual in a way that would make sense to them and that person listening would have to accept it as true.

A good question is why didn't we evolve to be capable of knowing everything? Or are we still evolving to that point? If we do reach a point to where everyone can know everything then this would prove that there is an absolute eternal truth to everything and logically we should all be trying to find what that truth is in order to prevent being deceived.

Chiliman, it's posts like this that get everyone talking about how you don't understand logic. Let's talk about a logical concept that if you try to avoid it...it should help your posts out a lot. That concept is called a "bare assertion" or "unfounded/empty claim". Do you know what these things are? In short, whenever you make a statement that you have no reason for making...when there is no logic or reason behind it...you're making an unfounded claim. Does that make sense? Let's count out all the unfounded claims in your post above...

1. We currently cannot explain the entire universe, but in the future we might be able to.
2. However, even at that point the one who understands the entire universe would have to explain it to each individual in a way that would make sense to them and that person listening would have to accept it as true.
3. A good question is why didn't we evolve to be capable of knowing everything? (It's not a good question)
4. If we do reach a point to where everyone can know everything then this would prove that there is an absolute eternal truth to everything and logically we should all be trying to find what that truth is in order to prevent being deceived.

So you see...pretty much your entire post here is a series of unfounded claims. There's no logic behind any of them. Maybe you have reasons for making these statements...but they aren't logical reasons. If you had a logical basis for these statements...why wouldn't you include it in your post before making these statements?

Can you see how it looks like you have no understanding of logic to just about everyone reading your posts?

 

[Davian]

We currently cannot explain the entire universe, but in the future we might be able to.

The entire universe? No. The observable universe? Maybe.

However, even at that point the one who understands the entire universe would have to explain it to each individual in a way that would make sense to them and that person listening would have to accept it as true.

Why would they have to? Do you need to know how semiconductors work to get on the internet? How fertilization works to make babies?

A good question is why didn't we evolve to be capable of knowing everything? Or are we still evolving to that point?

Your "good" questions betrays a big misconception regarding evolutionary theory. Evolution does not work towards a target.

If we do reach a point to where everyone can know everything then this would prove that there is an absolute eternal truth to everything

This presumes the existence of an "eternal truth".

and logically we should all be trying to find what that truth is in order to prevent being deceived.

From observing your posts, it would seem that you think you have found this "truth", and you are now attempting to work your arguments backwards from there. You do not demonstrate any concern that you may be deceived.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We currently cannot explain the entire universe, but in the future we might be able to. However, even at that point the one who understands the entire universe would have to explain it to each individual in a way that would make sense to them and that person listening would have to accept it as true.

A good question is why didn't we evolve to be capable of knowing everything? Or are we still evolving to that point? If we do reach a point to where everyone can know everything then this would prove that there is an absolute eternal truth to everything and logically we should all be trying to find what that truth is in order to prevent being deceived.

The entire universe? No. The observable universe? Maybe.

Why would they have to? Do you need to know how semiconductors work to get on the internet? How fertilization works to make babies?

Your "good" questions betrays a big misconception regarding evolutionary theory. Evolution does not work towards a target.

This presumes the existence of an "eternal truth".

From observing your posts, it would seem that you think you have found this "truth", and you are now attempting to work your arguments backwards from there. You do not demonstrate any concern that you may be deceived.

Do you see what happened there Chiliman?

Davian was able to just show all the mistakes you made because there was no logic behind any of your statements. If there was, he would've had to address the points you made...

This is the problem you constantly run into because you don't understand basic logic. Instead, you pretend that "your logic" is somehow different from everyone else's logic because you've got access to some "truth" in your mind.

The reality is though, that you just don't understand logic or how it's used.

 

[oi_antz]

Confirmation bias can create this just as easily as the truth can.

I don't agree with this.

 

[Chriliman]

Do you see what happened there Chiliman?

Davian was able to just show all the mistakes you made because there was no logic behind any of your statements. If there was, he would've had to address the points you made...

This is the problem you constantly run into because you don't understand basic logic. Instead, you pretend that "your logic" is somehow different from everyone else's logic because you've got access to some "truth" in your mind.

The reality is though, that you just don't understand logic or how it's used.

Your the one claiming my logic is somehow different from everyone else's. I like to think about the implications of things, I'm sorry if that causes you to think I'm illogical.

 

[oi_antz]

I never really understood the whole "Jesus could be proven in a court of law" nonsense some christians trot out in these arguments.

I would be very sceptical of such a claim. Faith, with God, seems to have deliberately gone to all lengths to ensure a person having it can be allowed to have it while those who don't can be allowed to not. There is no real right to say that everyone having faith should not have it and vice-versa.

Rather, in faith it is personal, that every single one of us will need to give an account for the words they have spoken. So even if a person was wrong, if they did not know that they were wrong then they will not be guilty. Yet if someone declares that they have made every effort to have faith with God, and yet they know inside them that there is disagreement with what they know He expects of them, they will not have an excuse. Yet, only God can see into the person, determining the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Such a person can deceive the people around them, and claim to be innocent. This is why courts can struggle to establish the truth. God does not have those limitations though, so such a person deceives themselves most grievously.

 

[oi_antz]

@Ana the Ist: thanks for post #1307 - nice tone, helpful and true.

How do you know if a pattern is reliable and aligns with the truth?

Experience. See for example 1 John 1:9.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Your the one claiming my logic is somehow different from everyone else's. I like to think about the implications of things, I'm sorry if that causes you to think I'm illogical.

Actually, I asked you if you thought your logic was somehow unique compared to the logic everyone else uses...

"Huh? I am responsible for my understanding of logic and I am responsible for how I use logic to form reasonable thoughts. We are beings who are capable of being logical, but we are restricted to our individual understanding of logic.

Again, how is this not logical? If it is logical, then how can you claim I'm doing it wrong? Are you just making things up to help you feel better about your position?"

Now it would appear that you think you're using the same logic the rest of us are...which is it? Do you believe you have your own system of logic?

 

[Chriliman]

Actually, I asked you if you thought your logic was somehow unique compared to the logic everyone else uses...

"Huh? I am responsible for my understanding of logic and I am responsible for how I use logic to form reasonable thoughts. We are beings who are capable of being logical, but we are restricted to our individual understanding of logic.

Again, how is this not logical? If it is logical, then how can you claim I'm doing it wrong? Are you just making things up to help you feel better about your position?"

Now it would appear that you think you're using the same logic the rest of us are...which is it? Do you believe you have your own system of logic?

Never claimed I have my own system of logic, but I can see how you read into that because I've said things like "my reasoning and logic", but I do not claim to have my own system of logic. Either something is logical or it's not, there's no special Chriliman logic that gets special recognition here no matter how much you push for it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't agree with this.

Care to explain why?

 

[oi_antz]

Care to explain why?

Yes, thank you! It is natural within a person to want to live their sinful way, and only if someone really knows how good and real the joy of being close with God, then they will rather want to stop living their sinful ways. The other thing is guilt and forgiveness. No person can ever escape their guilt, because they are stricken in their conscience everywhere they go. Yet, when God forgives, we are freed from that guilt. We have confidence because we have resolved to be free of sin. Those two things cannot be manufactured by confirmation bias.

 

[bhsmte]

@Ana the Ist: thanks for post #1307 - nice tone, helpful and true.

Experience. See for example 1 John 1:9.

I don't see how this would allow one to discern patterns are reliable and align with the truth, in any objective way.

But hey, whatever works for you.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, thank you! It is natural within a person to want to live their sinful way, and only if someone really knows how good and real the joy of being close with God, then they will rather want to stop living their sinful ways. The other thing is guilt and forgiveness. No person can ever escape their guilt, because they are stricken in their conscience everywhere they go. Yet, when God forgives, we are freed from that guilt. We have confidence because we have resolved to be free of sin. Those two things cannot be manufactured by confirmation bias.

You would have to show, that those who don't believe in a God, live sinful lives and have lives where they are stricken with guilt in their conscience.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, thank you! It is natural within a person to want to live their sinful way, and only if someone really knows how good and real the joy of being close with God, then they will rather want to stop living their sinful ways. The other thing is guilt and forgiveness. No person can ever escape their guilt, because they are stricken in their conscience everywhere they go. Yet, when God forgives, we are freed from that guilt. We have confidence because we have resolved to be free of sin. Those two things cannot be manufactured by confirmation bias.

For some reason, I thought we were speaking about recognizing a "pattern' of truth that allows us to draw correct conclusions. You were actually discussing emotions?

I happen to see 'guilt" and "shame" as closely related...any very different from how you see them.