- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
OK, I claim Christianity has all the answers. Is it perfect or not depends on your definition of perfect.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Eudaimonism and Buddhism aren't being claimed as perfect, so I'm not expecting them to solve all philosophical problems.
And the answer being "the same" could be coincidental.
OK, I claim Christianity has all the answers. Is it perfect or not depends on your definition of perfect.
Eudaimonism. You may think of it as a modern form of Aristotelianism.
...and if it had all the answers, it could answer all the philosophical problems I mentioned.
That is why I said that all this is your problem.
I have nothing whatsoever got to do with it.
(And as an aside, what I want, or don't want is not your place to second guess)
Teach me, what does your truth say about the origin of the universe? Does it say anything about it?
To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universefrom a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of lifeare caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically giveni.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.
Sure, here is an example.
eudaimonia,
Mark
This is very common. If one does not feel the heavy burden of sin, then there is no need for salvation. Besides, what is the salvation anyway? I have been pounding on this question for decades. It was just answered to me about ten years ago.
Buddhism is trying to overcome, or escape the consequences of sin. But Christianity says that is impossible. Which one is a better view? We have to examine the consequence in order to evaluate it. So it would not be enough to see this life only. There has to be something after that.
The quote is fallacious. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's mind-independent. If that were true, thoughts wouldn't exist.
No, there are other fallacies and/or missing steps.In my simplified logic deduction, the only thing not clear is what a "meaningful life" is.
Apart from the fact that it would be far from perfect even then, this is not what you promised. This would be yet again an additional assumption.Assume we know what that is, then my logic is perfect.
We have been discussing this, but that´s not the point.I don't think you want to discuss what a meaningful life is. So, that is it.
The point is that - as expected and predicted - your logical deduction introduces additional premises.
You haven't seen the whole discussion of metaphysics, just a snippet of certain insights.
And your conclusion is based on an improper understanding of "mind-independent". Just because the universe exists in a mind-independent way, that doesn't mean that minds don't exist. Rather, the universe does not depend on the existence of minds in order to exist.
Mind-independency does not mean lacking-mind, but rather lacking the need for mind in order to exist. If you are in a coma in the middle of the forest, and no one is around to see you, you still exist. When you wake up, you also still exist, but not because you've woken up.
eudaimonia,
Mark
A lot of questions can be asked about John 3:8. It is in fact, a hint which leads to a huge part of the whole doctrine.
God has Spirit called the Holy Spirit. You may ask, why should God have it?
God gives His Spirit to man. You may ask a whole bunch of questions right here. Why? Who? How? When? etc.
Not all man get the Holy Spirit. Do you want "one"? What for? Where is it?
etc. etc.
See the complexity of the problem?
In spite of all the problems, you, actually add one more to it (Just like Nicodemus): What is the real nature of the Holy Spirit? That is what John 3:8 talks about. It says: We do not know its real nature, but those who has it, will know that it is real (like feeling the wind). Of course, those who don't have it, it would simply be an empty name (can't see). So, if you want to know its nature, then accept it first. Otherwise, why bother?
I think in view of all the possible questions around the Holy Spirit, the answer given to this particular question is good enough.
No, there are other fallacies and/or missing steps.
Apart from the fact that it would be far from perfect even then, this is not what you promised. This would be yet again an additional assumption.
We have been discussing this, but that´s not the point.
The point is that - as expected and predicted - your logical deduction introduces additional premises.
No, I did not.
A : Have a meaningful life
B : There is life after life
I said:
1. if -B, then -A,
2. A,
3. so B.
#1 is not a premise. It is a relationship to be established by separated arguments. Since the focus is on B and the argument on #1 is long, so it is skipped. The purpose of this argument is to illustrate that the idea of having life after this life is all logic.
It is good enough to demonstrate that Christianity does not answer all questions. "I don't know" is not an answer.
doesn´t follow.No, I did not.
A : Have a meaningful life
B : There is life after life
I said:
1. if -B, then -A,
unsubstatiated claim.2. A,
doesn´t follow.3. so B.
Saying "the argument is long so therefore I´ll skip it" doesn´t replace an argument.#1 is not a premise. It is a relationship to be established by separated arguments. Since the focus is on B and the argument on #1 is long, so it is skipped.
So far all it illustrates is that you desire an afterlife and a god because you desire a meaning/purpose that is given to you by a god and an afterlife. So you believe in a god and in an afterlife.The purpose of this argument is to illustrate that the idea of having life after this life is all logic.
In fact, if we do not clarify the domain of argument, then it will render to such an apparent contradiction. In fact, you are not givin the right argument to the targeted question.
There are many many I-don't-knows in the content of Christianity. For example, how could Adam live 900+ years? But these questions are not the questions relate to the structure of the philosophy. The right question to ask on this example is: WHY should Adam live to such a long age? What would be wrong if those people lived a much shorter life, which is comparable to modern people?
The nature of the Holy Spirit is the same. We do not ask: how does God send His Spirit to man (we do not know how does God do it). Instead, we should ask: Why does God do that? What's wrong if He does not do that?
To summarize:
Christianity says: This happened.
Wrong question: How does it happen? (scientific)
Right question: Why should it happen? (philosophical)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?