Christianity as a philosophical system?

[juvenissun]

Compare the Bible to, say, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics or Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, and notice the difference. The Bible does not present philosophical arguments. The latter two do.

An example is that the Bible does not bother to present a reasoned argument to establish the existence of God. It merely asserts God's existence, and reassures the flock that this is obvious and that anyone who disagrees is a fool.

However, Aristotle argues for his godlike Prime Mover, and Thomas Aquinas presents several arguments in favor of the Christian God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

An axiom does not need a reason.

 

[The Nihilist]

Hey, show some intelligence. Don't let people ignore you.

It became clear to me pretty early in this thread that it's not worth the effort.

 

[The Nihilist]

An axiom does not need a reason.

There we go. Perfect example.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

An axiom at least needs some form of reason or justification, even if it doesn't have a rational or demonstrable argument in favor of it. In short, why does it make sense to believe in God axiomatically? Clearly, this isn't the case for everyone. I make plenty of sense even as I also admit the word is insensible sometimes without needing to believe in God

 

[Eudaimonist]

An axiom does not need a reason.

Then there is no reason for me to believe in God. I have my own nontheistic axioms.

ToHoldNothing makes exactly the point I would have made. While axioms aren't proven in some deductive fashion from other premises, one still needs a reason to accept one axiom over another. Such reasons are philosophical, and the Bible does not present any philosophical reasons to believe in the existence of God as an axiom.

Which leads me back to my point -- the Bible doesn't present a philosophical system. However, Christian apologists such as Thomas Aquinas attempt to fill this gap with their own arguments.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Your criticism of adding many extra axioms is not really true. I use to make definition this way:

God (a name) = functions (parameter 1, parameter 2, parameter 3, etc.)

This is what I said that after we introduced God into the system, then we can talk about what God is and what God does. This is a function set up, and is NOT adding more axioms to it. We can define the God as an unique identify, or we can define God as a group. We can add desirable parameters to describe the God.

A mere word or name does not make an axiom.
When I say "there exists Zisensontar" I haven´t created an axiom. I have merely created a so far meaningless word. Not until I define this word "Zisensontar exists" can become a meaningful statement.

However, I suggest you don´t get hung up too much on the word "axiom" if you want to understand what I am trying to say.
Each part of the definition of the word "God" or "Zisensontar" is an unnecessary assumption, unless it follows logically from something else.
There are a lot of unnecessary assumptions in the common god concepts, as well as in yours.

Is this the way to construct a philosophical system? For example, I like this God to be an unique one, because this reason and that reason. Is this another axiom added to the system? Or is this only a property assigned to the original axiom for a reason?

A mere word without defining properties attached to it is not an axiom, in my understanding. It´s just a meaningless word. Thus, assigning properties to a word is required for arriving at a statement (axiomatic or else).

For example, if God exists, and we exist. Then there will either be relationship between them or there is no relationship between them. And here is the "reason" for having a relationship: If there were no relationship, then I do not need to have God in the system. Since God is introduced into the system, then there should be a relationship. Sounds right? Did I just introduce another axiom?

Why "another"? Yes, you introduced one.

An axiom has no source. It just popped out. But it makes consequence. Otherwise the axiom is redundant. Any consequence derived from an axiom is not another axiom. So what I said that once God exists, then we should have relationship with Him, is NOT another axiom.

"God exists" is not an axiom (it is not even a meaningful statement), unless you give the term "god" a definition.
If throwing out the word "god" were already an axiom, I could define "god" as "pen that´s next to me on my desktop", and none of your "consequences" would follow from the original "axiom".

 

[quatona]

You devalued my question.

No, I didn´t. I informed you that "What purpose does life have?" is not a meaningful question in my worldview. No need to get touchy or take this personally.
My worldview doesn´t come with the underlying assumptions that apparently make this question meaningful in your worldview.

What I expected from you is either saying that life has a purpose or life has no purpose. At most, you may say that life has some purposes.

Sorry for all those disappointments, but I am not here to tell you what you want to hear.

You do not need to say that my question has no meaning or has presumptions.

Well, yes, sorry, I need to say it.
Anyway, I did more than that. I offered you a lot of additional thoughts and tried to explain how conflating your idea of "purpose/meaning" and mine is likely to result in a false equivocation and miscommunication.
I told you that in my worldview existence or life or anything doesn´t have a pre-determined or inherent meaning/purpose.

Even "smell green" has a meaning. It simply says that green has no smell. That is a very good meaning

Yes, you evaded the loaded question "What is the smell of green?", and gave a meaningful statement that did not answer the question, though. That´s exactly what I did:
Life/existence has no pre-determined or inherent meaning/purpose.

According to your explanation, I can see that you are saying that a life has numerous purposes, because a life can have numerous actions. Each different action, will give a different purpose.

No, that´s a misunderstanding. I am the one who determines the purposes, so do others. Please note that this doesn´t mean that life has an inherent purpose.

That is what I heard (read). But I don't believe that what you really think.

Please watch your words and your attitude. If you want to get psychic this conversation will end soon.

After you performed so many actions in so many years, you must have some thoughts to summarize all those little "purposes" into a few representative ones. That is what I am interested to know. You are simply avoid my question.

No, if that´s what you want to know, I simply have misunderstood your question. Had you asked "What (main) purposes did you pursue when performing your actions?" I would have understood it. However, you asked "What is the purpose/meaning of existence?", and that would be like asking "What is the colour of houses?" when you actually want to know what colour I have painted my house.

Whatever - I am glad we have resolved this misunderstanding.

Now, to answer your question:
The purposes I pursue are multiple and partly contradictory. Like, when I go to sleep I pursue rest, and when I get up I pursue activity.
However, if I were to describe a general guide (a meta-purpose, if you will) that I seem to have established for determining what is worth my time and effort and what isn´t, I´d tend to say: Mutual inspiration in the interaction with the persons I am dealing with.

Hope that helps.

 

[KCfromNC]

I mean, I can certainly see the appeal. You get to be God's chosen, and people who don't like you are enemies of God. What's not to like about it?

Plus, Christianity is so much like what a Christian believes is true, so it must be correct.

 

[juvenissun]

It became clear to me pretty early in this thread that it's not worth the effort.

Then go away. Don't make noise here.

 

[juvenissun]

An axiom at least needs some form of reason or justification, even if it doesn't have a rational or demonstrable argument in favor of it. In short, why does it make sense to believe in God axiomatically? Clearly, this isn't the case for everyone. I make plenty of sense even as I also admit the word is insensible sometimes without needing to believe in God

An axiom needs some reasoning AFTER it is introduced. That is the function of an axiom.

 

[juvenissun]

Then there is no reason for me to believe in God. I have my own nontheistic axioms.

ToHoldNothing makes exactly the point I would have made. While axioms aren't proven in some deductive fashion from other premises, one still needs a reason to accept one axiom over another. Such reasons are philosophical, and the Bible does not present any philosophical reasons to believe in the existence of God as an axiom.

Which leads me back to my point -- the Bible doesn't present a philosophical system. However, Christian apologists such as Thomas Aquinas attempt to fill this gap with their own arguments.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your argument is messy.

1. Give an axiom
2. Give reasons and arguments to that axiom

Step 2, does not interfere step 1, even it argued against the axiom.

Christianity gives numerous reasons in step 2. A good format is:
Because (a, b, c, ...) so there should be interactions (x, y, z, ...) with God.

 

[juvenissun]

A mere word or name does not make an axiom.
When I say "there exists Zisensontar" I haven´t created an axiom. I have merely created a so far meaningless word. Not until I define this word "Zisensontar exists" can become a meaningful statement.

However, I suggest you don´t get hung up too much on the word "axiom" if you want to understand what I am trying to say.
Each part of the definition of the word "God" or "Zisensontar" is an unnecessary assumption, unless it follows logically from something else.
There are a lot of unnecessary assumptions in the common god concepts, as well as in yours.


A mere word without defining properties attached to it is not an axiom, in my understanding. It´s just a meaningless word. Thus, assigning properties to a word is required for arriving at a statement (axiomatic or else).


Why "another"? Yes, you introduced one.


"God exists" is not an axiom (it is not even a meaningful statement), unless you give the term "god" a definition.
If throwing out the word "god" were already an axiom, I could define "god" as "pen that´s next to me on my desktop", and none of your "consequences" would follow from the original "axiom".

If we do not have xxxxx (axiom?) which says God Exists, then we do not need to work on the definition of God. That argues the need of the (axiom?).

If god were defined as your pen, then it means A LOT. One of them is there are many gods. So, my argument is very clear. First we need a name, then we assign properties to the name. That is how a philosophical system, in fact, any system, started.

Of course, you may start the construction with classification. But at the end when you present the system, you still starts with names.

 

[juvenissun]

No, I didn´t. I informed you that "What purpose does life have?" is not a meaningful question in my worldview. No need to get touchy or take this personally.
My worldview doesn´t come with the underlying assumptions that apparently make this question meaningful in your worldview.
Sorry for all those disappointments, but I am not here to tell you what you want to hear.
Well, yes, sorry, I need to say it.
Anyway, I did more than that. I offered you a lot of additional thoughts and tried to explain how conflating your idea of "purpose/meaning" and mine is likely to result in a false equivocation and miscommunication.
I told you that in my worldview existence or life or anything doesn´t have a pre-determined or inherent meaning/purpose.
Yes, you evaded the loaded question "What is the smell of green?", and gave a meaningful statement that did not answer the question, though. That´s exactly what I did:
Life/existence has no pre-determined or inherent meaning/purpose.


No, that´s a misunderstanding. I am the one who determines the purposes, so do others. Please note that this doesn´t mean that life has an inherent purpose.

Please watch your words and your attitude. If you want to get psychic this conversation will end soon.
No, if that´s what you want to know, I simply have misunderstood your question. Had you asked "What (main) purposes did you pursue when performing your actions?" I would have understood it. However, you asked "What is the purpose/meaning of existence?", and that would be like asking "What is the colour of houses?" when you actually want to know what colour I have painted my house.

Whatever - I am glad we have resolved this misunderstanding.

Now, to answer your question:
The purposes I pursue are multiple and partly contradictory. Like, when I go to sleep I pursue rest, and when I get up I pursue activity.
However, if I were to describe a general guide (a meta-purpose, if you will) that I seem to have established for determining what is worth my time and effort and what isn´t, I´d tend to say: Mutual inspiration in the interaction with the persons I am dealing with.

Hope that helps.

I got it now.

So you do not accept a predetermined purpose of life, but that is presented in Christianity, so you do not accept Christianity.

Clear enough and I can understand.

But, that is not what my OP goes after for. If you asked me to evaluate the theory of unicorn, I will try to question it from the view of the theory, even I do not think the theory is meaningful (for example, why does it have only one horn?). So when I present you a perfect system of Christianity, if you like to respond, then you should question it, instead of saying it is not meaningful to you.

May be you can say: "Christianity suggests a predetermined purpose of life, and that is not perfect because .... (too limited?)".

 

[Eudaimonist]

Your argument is messy.

Messy? More likely we have a different understanding of axioms and their justifications.

1. Give an axiom
2. Give reasons and arguments to that axiom

Step 2, does not interfere step 1, even it argued against the axiom.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Christianity gives numerous reasons in step 2. A good format is:
Because (a, b, c, ...) so there should be interactions (x, y, z, ...) with God.

Huh?

Could you perhaps give examples of all of the above? I have difficulty understanding you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ToHoldNothing]

An axiom needs some reasoning AFTER it is introduced. That is the function of an axiom.

You seem to be confusing rationalization and logical argumentation for ontological justification. If you believe an axiom, it has to have some general reasoning in the sense that it either serves a practical purpose or is a fundamental belief that, without believing it, would make life completely insensible and incoherent, such as believing that our senses are reliable.

 

[quatona]

If we do not have xxxxx (axiom?) which says God Exists, then we do not need to work on the definition of God. That argues the need of the (axiom?).

If "god" is just a word without a definition it has no meaning. Consequently, "god exists" has no meaning, either.
I would have no problems agreeing that "god exists" since I can define the word as whatever I wish to define it as.

If god were defined as your pen, then it means A LOT.

Sure does. It has a definition, after all.

One of them is there are many gods.

Doesn´t really matter but:
No. There is only one pen next to me on my desktop.

So, my argument is very clear. First we need a name, then we assign properties to the name. That is how a philosophical system, in fact, any system, started.

No, I don´t think that this is how it works. I think that first there is a concept, then we give it a name. At least that´s how it works for me.

Of course, you may start the construction with classification. But at the end when you present the system, you still starts with names.

"In the end"..."you start with names"???
That doesn´t make sense to me.
Personally, I experience myself starting with concepts/ideas, and then possibly give them names.

But ok, when you think philosophical systems start with words/names without properties and definitions and throwing out a word already functions as an axiom, you shouldn´t have any problems answering the following question straightforward:
Do you or don´t you agree with/accept the axiom that Zisensontar exists?

 

[quatona]

I got it now.

So you do not accept a predetermined purpose of life, but that is presented in Christianity, so you do not accept Christianity.


Clear enough and I can understand.

Not quite, but close.

Allow me to correct your wording (and add some explanations) just so things might get even clearer:

1. I do not assume a predetermined or inherent "purpose of life".
That would be an axiomatic assumption I see no reason whatsoever for.

2. No, I don´t think that the Christian assumption that there is a predetermined or inherent has been or is my main reason not to be a Christian. Actually, I wasn´t aware that the question why I am not a Christian was even part of this discussion. The reason why I engaged in this conversation about "meaning/purpose of life/existence" was that you asked me what I thought it was. I responded totally without having Christianity in mind (even less your personal brand of Christianity which you so far haven´t given a comprehensive description of, after all).

Since I know that there are denominations in Christianity that do not share your concept of a personal, intentionally acting, purpose/meaning-giving, authoritative God, my rejection of the axiom that there is a predetermined/inherent meaning/purpose to my/our existence/life (or life/existence as a general concept) wouldn´t even necessarily preclude me from being a Christian.

But, that is not what my OP goes after for.

So what does it go after for?
I understood it to go after for the claim that it is an in itself coherent, consistent and complete worldview, and - for the sake of the argument - accepting that this was so, my initial response came down to:

Who cares? Once we are allowed to create our own unnecessary assumptions it is no problem whatsoever to create an internally coherent, consistent and complete worldview.
There are plenty of worldviews out there that are "perfect" in the sense that they are - once you accept their unfounded assumptions - internally without logical flaws and - by their own standards - complete.

If you asked me to evaluate the theory of unicorn,

Pardon me - what is "the theory of unicorn"? What does it say?

I will try to question it from the view of the theory, even I do not think the theory is meaningful (for example, why does it have only one horn?).

In this case, the claim "it only has one horn" was meaningful to you. Quite obviously you do know what a "horn" is supposed to be (correct me if I´m wrong). You just may disagree that there is an entity with just one horn, but disagreeing with a statement, and being unable to attach meaning to it in your worldview are two entirely different things.

So when I present you a perfect system of Christianity, if you like to respond, then you should question it, instead of saying it is not meaningful to you.

Again: I feel no obligation to humour you in the way you expect me to or you think I "should".

Next: You haven´t presented anything. You haven´t described a thought system. You merely claimed that Christianity was a "perfect" system.


Thirdly: I have, for the sake of the argument, accepted your claim that Christianity was a "perfect" (by your definition of "perfect") system.

All I did was to tell you
a. that there are plenty of other thought systems that match the requirements that you have put up for a "perfect system" (i.e. being internally consistent and - by virtue of their own paradigms - complete, once you accept their unnecessary assumptions).
b. that it´s no problem whatsoever to define things into existence in the way you define the god of your concept into existence
c. that there is little benefit coming from superimposing the paradigms of one worldview upon another
(examples:
- someone asking me what the inherent purpose of life is - this is a meaningless concept in my worldview, or
- someone asking you "Who created God?" - because "God is uncreated" is one of the defining statements of your god concept).

May be you can say: "Christianity suggests a predetermined purpose of life, and that is not perfect because .... (too limited?)".

Well, we could now tell each other all day long what we want the other to say...but unfortunately you suggest me to say something that I do/did not want, mean to or intend to say.
Thus, if you want someone to say what you desire to be said I suggest you say it yourself or find yourself someone else who is willing to give you the cues you desire.
I would kindly ask you to understand that I prefer and will continue to give the statements that I am intending to give, and in the wording I want them to make in. Thanks. I assure you that I am doing my best picking my statements and words carefully (although I am not a native English speaker). I would kindly ask you to treat them accordingly.
In case you don´t find them interesting, relevant or worth considering chances are that this is due to the different paradigms of your and my worldview.

 

[The Nihilist]

Then go away. Don't make noise here.

Gotta have fun somehow.

 

[juvenissun]

Messy? More likely we have a different understanding of axioms and their justifications.



I'm not sure what you mean.



Huh?

Could you perhaps give examples of all of the above? I have difficulty understanding you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Example: Because we do not understand much, so we need instructions from God.

I think you (and me) need to review what we said in order to know what we are talking about.

 

[juvenissun]

You seem to be confusing rationalization and logical argumentation for ontological justification. If you believe an axiom, it has to have some general reasoning in the sense that it either serves a practical purpose or is a fundamental belief that, without believing it, would make life completely insensible and incoherent, such as believing that our senses are reliable.

There are two steps in that short premise: An axiom and believe it.

You must have something first, so you can reason if you want to believe it.

So, the first thing set in Christian philosophy is: let there be God. If later on we feel this axiom is not needed, then we can consider to delete it.