Christianity as a philosophical system?

[juvenissun]

If you think your truth is complete, all that means is that you're ignoring the missing pieces. You do not know everything, and it will do nothing for you to think that you do.

So, would you remind me what have I missed? I do not want to ignore it.

 

[quatona]

What I said in further is that my truth covers wider ground than your truth. And I do not see any argument against that.

There is a simple but effective arguments against it: In my worldview those grounds that your "truth" allegedly covers don´t even exist, in the first place.

If "covering a wider ground" were a quality in itself, I could come up with a truth that covers an even wider ground than yours: It would e.g. even answer the question: "Who created God?".

 

[3sigma]

My truth is called Christianity. What is the name of your truth?

Reality.

If so, there must be some questions in your mind that Christianity can not answer to your satisfaction. I like to know those questions. Would you share?

So, would you remind me what have I missed? I do not want to ignore it.

Who or what created the Christian God?

 

[quatona]

It is purely logical. I will be honest with you, juvenissun. This has got to be one of the poorest attempts at a logical deduction that I have ever seen. This is not worth my time.
This has been a friendly discussion, and I thank you for that.
But: When you want to unfold a perfect philosophical system, and already before the very first step in is construction you admit that this first step argument may not be complete I get really bored and frustrated. A logical deduction is as weak as its weakest step, and an incomplete logical deduction isn´t a logical deduction at all.

If there were no life after this life, then this life would be meaningless.

Doesn´t follow (non sequitur). Fallacy.

But this life has to be meaningful,

Says who? Is that supposed to be another additional unnecessary premise you want me us to accept for the sake of the argument?
Or is it meant to be logically deduced from anything? In which case you would have to walk us through this deduction instead of simply making the claim.

so, there must be (my) life after this life.

Argument from consequence. Fallacy.

In fact, this has been illustrated very well by what's said in the Book of Job. (believe me, all arguments in there are pretty logical based on the axiom I mentioned)

Sorry, but seeing what you present here as logic I certainly don´t trust your judgement as to what´s logical. The time of "believe me" is over. It lasted as long as you were allowed to put up your unnecessary premises ("axioms"). Now is the time to show us what you´ve got.

That is why I asked you what is the meaning of (this) life to you? And I don't like your answer (not satisfied by logic reasons). You may say this is MY recognition. But such a recognition of mine comes from Christianity. If there were no Christianity, I will not have such an understanding. And my understanding is not deviated from Christianity. So even it is mine, but it still belongs to Christianity.

I´m not sure I understand what you are trying to tell me here. In short I read it as "Not only I, but Christianity as a whole doesn´t like your answer. Therefore Christianity is a perfect philosophical system." or "If your answer were correct. Christianity would have it wrong. This is impossible, because Christianity has it right."
Or something.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

If so, there must be some questions in your mind that Christianity can not answer to your satisfaction. I like to know those questions. Would you share?

It's not so much questions that cannot be answered, it's moreso a paradigm that does not make me feel fulfilled. I do not feel meaningful in believing anything like the general Christian theories of salvation.

-----

Buddhism preaches: do this and you get peace.
Christianity preaches: you are a sinner, repent.

Which one would comfort people at the first touch? Why does the Christianity look stupid on this "recruiting effort"?

In order to evaluate a system seriously, one has to get in, to understand

Buddhism is simpler in that it doesn't get into the guilt from one's own actions that are given that state of sinfulness from outside oneself, from Adam. Buddhism simply says, this is the path, you walk it at whatever stage you are in. Seems much simpler and yet complex in application that it is open to all.

 

[SithDoughnut]

So, would you remind me what have I missed? I do not want to ignore it.

The wind [or spirit, depending on translation] blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

That's the first verse that came to mind. The Bible says that you cannot know the entirety of your truth. It is incomplete. Jesus recognised this.

Quite simply, you do not know what you've missed. Although the nature of God, the purpose of the universe and the events of the future are all an important part of your truth, but you do not know them. You can merely speculate.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

A property of perfection is inclusive. If it is perfect, then you will be part of it, like it or not.

You must believe this stuff. Not me.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What I said in further is that my truth covers wider ground than your truth. And I do not see any argument against that.

I don't see any argument in favor of that.

My truth is called Christianity. What is the name of your truth?

Eudaimonism. You may think of it as a modern form of Aristotelianism.

I am saying whatever you have, it is too narrow and has a lot of questions unanswered.

1) Considering that you don't even know what my worldview contains, this is an empty claim. I do not claim omniscience, but my worldview does contain positions in all of the major branches of philosophy.

2) You haven't shown that Christianity answers all possible questions. You mere assert this, and your rationalistic way of dealing with the issue of meaning in life doesn't fill me with confidence. Having the ability to generate "answers" doesn't mean that one is generating properly justified knowledge claims.

If I asked you a question, you say I don't know or I haven't thought about it, or I don't care, that is not good.

Are you trying to put words into my mouth? I recall you asking me only one philosophical question, which I had replied to in post #167 and had never received a response.

But I'd have to say that if I were to ask you a philosophical question, and you were to say that you didn't know the answer, or hadn't thought about it, or even that you didn't care, I'd take that as a very good sign that you are engaging in philosophy. Of course, it would depend on why you didn't know, or hadn't thought about it, or didn't care, but this would suggest to me that you didn't simply assume that you know everything or could know everything, but were taking ideas seriously enough to be honest with yourself.

Is answering question a purpose of any philosophy?

No, that is definitely not the purpose of philosophy. Philosophy isn't a crystal ball that can answer any question instantly. Philosophy is the practice of the love of wisdom -- IOWs, the pursuit of wisdom -- which means examining one's worldview for contradictions and unsupported claims, admitting to this when found, and then actively seeking justifiable answers. The philosopher is wise not only in knowing what he knows, but in knowing what he does not know.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

There is a simple but effective arguments against it: In my worldview those grounds that your "truth" allegedly covers don´t even exist, in the first place.

If "covering a wider ground" were a quality in itself, I could come up with a truth that covers an even wider ground than yours: It would e.g. even answer the question: "Who created God?".

What is the truth called?

 

[juvenissun]

It is purely logical. I will be honest with you, juvenissun. This has got to be one of the poorest attempts at a logical deduction that I have ever seen. This is not worth my time.
This has been a friendly discussion, and I thank you for that.
But: When you want to unfold a perfect philosophical system, and already before the very first step in is construction you admit that this first step argument may not be complete I get really bored and frustrated. A logical deduction is as weak as its weakest step, and an incomplete logical deduction isn´t a logical deduction at all.



Doesn´t follow (non sequitur). Fallacy.
Says who? Is that supposed to be another additional unnecessary premise you want me us to accept for the sake of the argument?
Or is it meant to be logically deduced from anything? In which case you would have to walk us through this deduction instead of simply making the claim.

Argument from consequence. Fallacy.
Sorry, but seeing what you present here as logic I certainly don´t trust your judgement as to what´s logical. The time of "believe me" is over. It lasted as long as you were allowed to put up your unnecessary premises ("axioms"). Now is the time to show us what you´ve got.

I´m not sure I understand what you are trying to tell me here. In short I read it as "Not only I, but Christianity as a whole doesn´t like your answer. Therefore Christianity is a perfect philosophical system." or "If your answer were correct. Christianity would have it wrong. This is impossible, because Christianity has it right."
Or something.

In my simplified logic deduction, the only thing not clear is what a "meaningful life" is. Assume we know what that is, then my logic is perfect.

I don't think you want to discuss what a meaningful life is. So, that is it.

I present an idea in the OP. You said it is not your interest. Whatever I said is not in your worldview. What a good reply that is.

 

[juvenissun]

It's not so much questions that cannot be answered, it's moreso a paradigm that does not make me feel fulfilled. I do not feel meaningful in believing anything like the general Christian theories of salvation.

-----

Buddhism is simpler in that it doesn't get into the guilt from one's own actions that are given that state of sinfulness from outside oneself, from Adam. Buddhism simply says, this is the path, you walk it at whatever stage you are in. Seems much simpler and yet complex in application that it is open to all.

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.

 

[juvenissun]

That's the first verse that came to mind. The Bible says that you cannot know the entirety of your truth. It is incomplete. Jesus recognised this.

Quite simply, you do not know what you've missed. Although the nature of God, the purpose of the universe and the events of the future are all an important part of your truth, but you do not know them. You can merely speculate.

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.

 

[juvenissun]

You must believe this stuff. Not me.

You mean you do not want to take a look of it. Well, yes indeed, nobody can force you to do that.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Christian scripture has inconsistencies (Yahweh is both almighty and capable of being repelled by iron chariots, Judas died from suicide by hanging and miraculous explosion), Christianity is vaguely defined, and Christianity doesn't explain many of the problems in philosophy: for instance, it has no answer to the mind-body problem, the nature of knowledge, the ideal form of governance, the free will debate, the nature of truth, or the problem of universals.

Hardly a perfect philosophical system.

 

[juvenissun]

Living beings. Notably, human beings.

That's assuming I understand your question correctly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So, let me put it this way:

There is a case, that something is alive, but has no intelligence. Is that right?

Basically, I take this as a question about the nature life. What is a life. If a bacterium has no intelligence, then which life begins to have intelligence?

If you say a bacterium has some intelligence, then I would ask how do you tell intelligence from reflective reaction?

I am a scientist. I usually push this type of question into the realm of science. And I usually see no solution to the problem.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You mean you do not want to take a look of it. Well, yes indeed, nobody can force you to do that.

The emphasis in my last post was on you. You need to be convinced about your philosphy et al. Not me. You need to make your case. It is not that I need to. You do. You need to make your case for it, for yourself. Not me, against it, for you.

You see?

 

[juvenissun]

Christian scripture has inconsistencies (Yahweh is both almighty and capable of being repelled by iron chariots, Judas died from suicide by hanging and miraculous explosion), Christianity is vaguely defined, and Christianity doesn't explain many of the problems in philosophy: for instance, it has no answer to the mind-body problem, the nature of knowledge, the ideal form of governance, the free will debate, the nature of truth, or the problem of universals.

Hardly a perfect philosophical system.

You have to admit that all the problems you mentioned have been debated between Christians and non-Christians.

If there are debates, then both sides MUST have their argument. It would mean that Christianity HAS answers to all the problems. Only people wanted to question the answer.

Can you debate some, or all the problems with Eudaimonism or Buddhism? I doubt it. For example, what does Eudaimonism say about the ideal form of governance? If you read the Book of Samuel, or even the Book of Acts, the Christian version of answer is right there. The two Books are written thousand years apart, in totally different environment and situation, yet the answer is the same.

 

[juvenissun]

The emphasis in my last post was on you. You need to be convinced about your philosphy et al. Not me. You need to make your case. It is not that I need to. You do. You need to make your case for it, for yourself. Not me, against it, for you.

You see?

No. I have already been convinced. You are not. And you don't want to see it.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

No. I have already been convinced.

That is why I said that all this is your problem.

You are not. And you don't want to see it.

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)

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

You have to admit that all the problems you mentioned have been debated between Christians and non-Christians.

If there are debates, then both sides MUST have their argument. It would mean that Christianity HAS answers to all the problems. Only people wanted to question the answer.

Can you debate some, or all the problems with Eudaimonism or Buddhism? I doubt it. For example, what does Eudaimonism say about the ideal form of governance? If you read the Book of Samuel, or even the Book of Acts, the Christian version of answer is right there. The two Books are written thousand years apart, in totally different environment and situation, yet the answer is the same.

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.