Christianity as a philosophical system?

[juvenissun]

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.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

OK, I claim Christianity has all the answers. Is it perfect or not depends on your definition of perfect.

...and if it had all the answers, it could answer all the philosophical problems I mentioned.

 

[juvenissun]

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

OK, your truth has a name, and it is neither shallow nor narrow.

Teach me, what does your truth say about the origin of the universe? Does it say anything about it?

You may ask me a similar nature of question about Christianity and see if Christianity has an answer to your question.

 

[juvenissun]

...and if it had all the answers, it could answer all the philosophical problems I mentioned.

It does. Which one is not answered? Just name the toughest one.

 

[juvenissun]

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)

Bye.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Teach me, what does your truth say about the origin of the universe? Does it say anything about it?

Sure, here is an example.

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 universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Sure, here is an example.




eudaimonia,

Mark

The quote is fallacious. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's mind-independent. If that were true, thoughts wouldn't exist.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

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.

Now you're just trying to make an excuse for why I won't convert, which is no different than making excuses for why any person is an atheist at any stage of their life. I don't deny that I feel a burden, but it isn't of sinning in any sense of losing my salvation ultimately. At best, I feel potential guilt or sorrow in that I could've made another decision, but I didn't, because I was too selfish or focused on material benefits of one form or another (including immortality) as opposed to practical benefits that go beyond living forever.

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.

Buddhism believes that we only bind ourselves to samsara because we think things have to be just one way and cleave unwaveringly to that delusion. I will not survive my death except in the memories I left with people. My personality and consciousness will not survive my death, but life will go on regardless. Even if I was enlightened in some Buddhist way, I'd probably choose to be a bodhisattva and seek to help more people in my next life as well as the life I'm in now assuming I don't achieve enlightenment right before death, which is usually uncommon in Buddhist lore.

Which one is the better view: one that lends itself more to determinism and fatalism or one that admits our limits, but also sees limitless potential in every human being? Of course, without qualifying which one I'm referring to, you could just as easily say Buddhism is the former and Xianity the latter, whereas I completely reverse that and say Xianity tends towards making people surrender their volition and their willpower to let God do everything for them, or at the very least, guide them as if they have no capacity to guide themselves.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The quote is fallacious. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's mind-independent. If that were true, thoughts wouldn't exist.

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

 

[quatona]

In my simplified logic deduction, the only thing not clear is what a "meaningful life" is.

No, there are other fallacies and/or missing steps.

Assume we know what that is, then my logic is perfect.

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.

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

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.

 

[quatona]

What is the truth called?

Let´s call it Metatheism.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

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

I know what mind independence is, I'm just saying that depends on the existence of a mind still exists.

 

[SithDoughnut]

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.

It is good enough to demonstrate that Christianity does not answer all questions. "I don't know" is not an answer.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

 

[juvenissun]

It is good enough to demonstrate that Christianity does not answer all questions. "I don't know" is not an answer.

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)

 

[quatona]

No, I did not.

A : Have a meaningful life
B : There is life after life

I said:

1. if -B, then -A,

doesn´t follow.

2. A,

unsubstatiated claim.

3. so B.

doesn´t follow.

#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.

Saying "the argument is long so therefore I´ll skip it" doesn´t replace an argument.

The purpose of this argument is to illustrate that the idea of having life after this life is all logic.

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.

 

[SithDoughnut]

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)

Neither of which Christianity answers with anything other than "it's beyond you".

 

[juvenissun]

I will stop monitoring this thread closely. Thanks to everyone for the responses.
ToHoldNothing, your comments are hard to reply. Thank you. I haven't do a good job on that. I do want to respond, but it would take me more time to think through what you said. I might still do that, but not on a timely manner.