A Paradox in Christianity

[billwald]

>If G-d gave us logic, it is safe to assume that he wanted us to use it, right?


If G-d gave us crystal meth, it is safe to assume that he wanted us to use it, right?

 

[Eudaimonist]

If G-d gave us crystal meth, it is safe to assume that he wanted us to use it, right?

Did God give us crystal meth?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[solarwave]

Actually, he's fulfilled about a third of the 300 prophecies, and not all of them are that impressive: the Immanuel prophecy, for instance, was 'fulfilled' insofar as Matthew mention in passing that Jesus was Immanuel. Is that a truly fulfilled prophecy, or was it self-fulfilling (i.e., he was called that, or Matthew wrote it, because he was so prophesied)?

Give me an example of the 300 which weren't fulfilled. Its pretty easy to find a web site giving all 300 propheices and where in the Bible they are fulfilled. Yes not all 300 are amazing, but just 10 mains onces would enough to make you say, there might be something to this.

Or, it reads exactly as if it were fictional.

Quantum science is even more weird then many religions and people (myself included) still believe it by faith.

I agree, though perhaps not with the last part

Yh the last part may have been over the top, but its easy to get annoyed with someone who talks about what you believe as if they even half know you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Give me an example of the 300 which weren't fulfilled.

From YahooAnswers:

• The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26)
• Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4)
• The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17)
• He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8-10)
• The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with "fear of God" (Isaiah 11:2)
• Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4)
• Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9)
• He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10)
• All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)
• Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8)
• There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)
• All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19)
• The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11)
• He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7)
• Nations will end up recognizing the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5)
• The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23)
• The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55)
• Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)
• The Temple will be rebuilt (Ezekiel 40) resuming many of the suspended mitzvot
• He will then perfect the entire world to serve God together (Zephaniah 3:9)
• Jews will know the Torah without study (Jeremiah 31:33)[original research?]
• He will give you all the worthy desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4)
• He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9)

Its pretty easy to find a web site giving all 300 propheices and where in the Bible they are fulfilled. Yes not all 300 are amazing, but just 10 mains onces would enough to make you say, there might be something to this.

Can you give an example of 10 main prophecies, and show that they were in fact fulfilled?

Quantum science is even more weird then many religions and people (myself included) still believe it by faith.

The difference between quantum mechanics and religion is that the former is based on the evidence and predicts experimentally falsifiable results. Why do you believe in 'by faith'? Faith is belief without reason, yet quantum theory is one of the most well-evidenced theories ever produced by science.

Yh the last part may have been over the top, but its easy to get annoyed with someone who talks about what you believe as if they even half know you.

Hah, indeed.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

First of all: Non-contradiction does not state something about being in the first place, but about propositions. It states that no proposition is both, true and false. Formally in statement logic ¬(A & ¬A) is a logical truth and A & ¬A a logical falsity. The main problem of your argument is, that is presupposes too much and thereby remains mysterious and unprecise; such things as identity for example - identity is a predicate that we have to define first and we already get to predicate logic then doing that. Since you introduced the identity sign without defining it, I do not see the point in your derivation without a definition of that sign. I believe of course that you presuppose a notion of identity that is intuitionistically invalid.

Can you give an example where something isn't identical to itself? I like to define the 'equals' symbol as 'if I replace the thing on the right with the thing on the left in some other statement, said statement doesn't change'. In the case where A is on both the left and the right, this still holds true. Thus, A = A.

Namely that x is either identical or nonidentical to y, which already presupposes the law of the excluded middle.

That is not my definition of '='.

Yet, intuitionistically speaking, it is not the case that if a thing is not non-identical with itself then it is also identical with itself. The identity of things with infinitley many properties is not established just from the fact that they are not different from anything else. They are neither identical nor non-identical with themselves. And by such terms, your argument does not hold.

I disagree: something with infinitely many properties is not necessarily identical to something else with infinitely many properties. A could have infinite properties which take numerical values between 0 and 1 , and likewise B's properties lie between 2 and 3. Though they both have infinite properties, they are not identical: their properties are all different. A is distinguishable from B. Replacing A with B yields different results.

I think you should begin to acknowledge the facts. There are modes of thought very different from what you estimate to be "making sense" that do work.

I would accept the facts, if I thought of them as such. I'm a scientist; I don't care what I believe, so long as it's right.
And a brusque attitude isn't exactly helping.

The problem here is, that you have to cut out your own intuition of the difference between epistemplogy (knowledge) and onotlogy (being).

How so?

Intuitionism does claim that for the domain of mathematical entities there is no difference between that which is known and that which is.

Not necessarily. The mathematician may be presented with an analytically solvable equation: a solution exists, but the mathematician does not yet know what it is.

This is simply a consequence of the assumtions made by the intuitionist mathematician. To deny the credibility of your opponent by dogmatically restating your own intuitions which rest on other modes of rationality is not a profitable strategy when it comes to mutual understanding.

I am not stating intuitions, I am stating definitions.

The very first step is: Give up the distinction between fact and knowledge. There are no unknown facts in intuitionist mathematics.

Then submit your solutions to the Millenium Problems and claim your US$6,000,000.

You simply have to see: An intuitionist does not have any use for the classical reasoning with the identity predicate. It does not have to do anything with an extension or replacement. Since there are undecidable properties, identity may be undecidable, too.

Indeterminable is different to superposition. Just because we don't know what something is, doesn't mean it doesn't have a set value.

Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it is nonsensical. That is a pretty arrogant stance to take up here.

Indeed. Fortunately, I'm not taking it. It is nonsensical by its own merits .

 

[Wiccan_Child]

>If G-d gave us logic, it is safe to assume that he wanted us to use it, right?


If G-d gave us crystal meth, it is safe to assume that he wanted us to use it, right?

Sure. Except, he didn't: we have to make it ourselves .

 

[Rauffenburg]

@WiccanChild

I am not stating intuitions, I am stating definitions.

And I state that there are different definitions as well. So in that case you do not have any right to think that your definitions are exclusive; they are not. That is the only fact I want you to recognize.

I would accept the facts, if I thought of them as such. I'm a scientist; I don't care what I believe, so long as it's right.
And a brusque attitude isn't exactly helping.

The fact is that you can start with a different type of logic and do interesting stuff with it.

Indeterminable is different to superposition. Just because we don't know what something is, doesn't mean it doesn't have a set value.

You can always restate that ontology and epistemology are different areas. But in constructive mathematics they simply are not. You ask how you can take this different standpoint - in a way it is very simple, you just have to use a different kind of logic; just like you use a different saw for wood and for iron. You will then see that your different methods of reasoning will lead to different results. And in my eyes this alone is worth a try, since science and philosophy is always about trying out new ways of thought.

Not necessarily. The mathematician may be presented with an analytically solvable equation: a solution exists, but the mathematician does not yet know what it is.

In constructive mathematics a solution means to have a constructive procedure for a certain mathematical object. And there are cases in which such procedures do not exist. So by terms of constructive mathematics, not every mathematical problem is solvable.

btw. if you like to read a good non-technical introduction to Brouwer's intuitionism, I suggest to go for "Mark van Atten - On Brouwer". Just in case you may want to learn something more about that.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

>If G-d gave us logic, it is safe to assume that he wanted us to use it, right?


If G-d gave us crystal meth, it is safe to assume that he wanted us to use it, right?

So you're comparing logic to crystal meth? So logic is bad? Logic destroys your body? Logic makes you high? Logic is illegal?

The only thing that logic has in relation to crystal meth is that it's addictive.

 

[solarwave]

I dont think he/she is comparing logic to crystal meth but your arguement for logic and the same arguement to crystal meth. Basically, just because God gave us something it doesn't mean He wants us to use it. I disagree with this, but I just wanted to make it clear.

 

[Echetus]

Christianity isnt illogical. Christianity is testimony. There are those who testified that God was active in Israel. Exodus, David, Jesus. All documentations of miracles. Now God doesnt exist however nowadays in the constant exposure of himself. Rather he works through a form of being called the Holy Spirit. There are thousands today that testify that the Holy Spirit has done something Miraculous for them. Illnesses being healed, life changing resolutions.
So my retort is that it is illogical to label Christianity illogical. Also thats its illogical to disbelieve the testimony of so many people, as limited creatures in intellectual capacity its impossible for us to find the truth on our own. Now we rely on the testimony of others to such an extent to where school is based around our capacity to remember those tesimonies, to challenge everything that has ever been concluded and agreed upon by others, Christianity inculded, is not only illogical but down right stupid.

 

[JonF]

So G-d wants us to use the logic he gave us, but isn't it in fact illogical to choose any one religion (relating back to my first point that Christianity asserts itself to be the only correct religion) based only on what others can tell us? Faith is illogical, but G-d wants us to use logic. Paradox!

I agree it is poorly reasoned to choose a religion based soley what others (assuming here you mean normal, ordinary humans) can tell us. But who said this is why we choose Christianity. I would take a look at calvinism if i were you.

and join a club that focuses more on formal argument

 

[Eudaimonist]

Christianity isnt illogical. Christianity is testimony.

So are stories about ghosts, alien abductions, etc.

Also thats its illogical to disbelieve the testimony of so many people, as limited creatures in intellectual capacity its impossible for us to find the truth on our own.

That's a knife that cuts both ways. If we are so limited in our intellectual capacities, why should I trust the ability of all those people to properly interpret their experiences? I should discount those experiences immediately as worthless.

But it is not my view that we are so limited, especially when we don't limit ourselves with beliefs that we are incapable of finding truths on our own. However, all experiences require interpretation, and people can misinterpret those experiences. We all need to exercise sound judgment in evaluating experiences, especially those of others.

Now we rely on the testimony of others to such an extent to where school is based around our capacity to remember those tesimonies

You've been going to the wrong schools. Any school which teaches students to do nothing more than mindlessly memorize and take everything teachers say on faith is committing a moral crime against those students. Any good school teaches students to understand the subjects, to examine why people believe that what is being taught is true and justified, where opportunities are to expand human knowledge, and to disprove old ideas if possible. All "testimony" should be taken with a grain of salt, not blind acceptance.

I'm reading a book by a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry. Herbert Hauptman was told by all the experts that x-ray crystallography simply couldn't be used to reveal molecular structures. He was told that it was impossible, even in principle. The experts gave plenty of testimony explaining how it was impossible. No one believed his mathematical insight that it could be done in principle.

It took Hauptman eight years to develop a practical method of x-ray crystallography. The experts still didn't believe him. Only when others started using his method in practical applications did the experts finally relent and admit that his method worked. Every pharmaceutical company today has an x-ray crystallography department in order to design new drugs by achieving the desired molecular structure.

Not every speculation pans out in reality, but thank reason he didn't pay much attention to testimony.

to challenge everything that has ever been concluded and agreed upon by others, Christianity inculded, is not only illogical but down right stupid.

Christianity has not been agreed upon by others, only by some others. Hinduism and other non-Christian religions have been agreed upon by others, but I don't see you jumping on their boat.

Once upon a time everyone thought that the Earth was flat, and even that idea had to be challenged and overturned. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader whether or not challenging the ancient flat earth theory is illogical or stupid.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Echetus]

I understand that logic and faith are not always mutually exclusive, if that's what you're asking.


I could tell you that.


I realize that nobody just made up the whole Bible, (which is why I said in my earlier post that I respect its historical significance) but just because we know that Jesus existed and had whatever legacy does not allow us to jump to the conclusion that he is the son of G-d.


People should accept that homosexuality is not a choice for similar reasons.



Old news.


And yet we still have Jews. Whether Jesus was the Messiah that the Old Testament spoke of is very debatable.



Eh wha?


Lots of people denied Jesus, they just didn't write a book about it that lasted 2000 years.


Are you actually trying to tell me that an apostle was unbiased in writing the Bible?


Where can you discern that?


Clearly


Yes, you believe it because your parents and priests tell you to, which is sort of my point.

A stupid philosophy to begin with has now abundantly shown its ignorance. But in response to someone who quoted me, "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 27And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning." Religion is testimony. The Holy Spirit testifies of Lord Jesus, and we testify of the Holy Spirit. I guess its a christian logic. I already thought what you said before, however the moderation is lost because of my zeal for Jesus. Ill explain further later, to tired right now.

 

[Echetus]

One of my points, which was missed, was that to question everything widely accepted with points that are supposedly 'concrete' evidences against it is foolish. This person seems to think that this philosophy is soooo smart, but its foolish.

 

[-Vincent-]

The logical arguments were interesting between two members who evidently have studied kinds of logic.

Within the logic of set theory one can ask this question; "does the set of all sets contain itself?" One can propose this question but it does not seem to be true or false.

Logic from this example is simply a word game, and not superior to ontology.

The whole of what we know will come to us through experiences of various kinds. Seek for the best in experience, seek to become a son of God our father. This is the whole purpose of faith in the existence of God, move God to move you.

Via con Dios

 

[Luddite]

Sorry for necroing another thread, but after having read it I felt I had to post a reply

** In Genesis it plainly states that G-d created us above all the other creatures.

But it never says he created us above all other creatures just "because we have logic". Sure, our level of reasoning is a part of human superiority, but the primary thing he gave us is not only reason, but just as much our body and soul, our whole being. A part of that being, is the nous, which has been described as the eye of the soul, the receiving intellect, the ability we have unlike any other creature, to receive God, to feel Gods presence, to commune with God. Remember, reason is what enables us to understand our experience; and in our experience, we see God reveal himself, but this revelation when it is understood, is what means that we can commune with God and be in his presence in our nous.

And as to Gods existence, he gave us reasoning to understand that there is God, not to understand what God is.

And the reasoning powers he gave us doesn't contradict that he exists, since if he reveals himself to us, our reason is capable of interpreting that experience to understand that he exists.

There are also many Christian philosophers who have put forward purely intellectual reasons to believe God exists, apart from his self-revelation, but I feel that this may miss the point, which is the individual meeting with God.