Flat out denial.

[nonbeliever314]

I think part of the problem may be yours.

You think you know, and he does not know.
He think even he does not know, but you do not know either. Thus he rejected your insufficient knowledge, but failed to provide an alternative.

Are you sure you know the answer?
No matter what the problem is, I doubt it.
You may try your best knowledge and I will try to cast some doubts on it.

That's not exactly what I'm trying to get at. It's quite the opposite. Say I authored a scientific paper that appeared to be in favor for some argument for the existence of God. Then I have a debate with someone quoting my scientific work to back up their God argument. But then I say you misinterpreted my paper, that's not actually what it means, so that part of your argument is invalid. At that point they don't say "Oops, I stand corrected", they try to get around it somehow and deny the fact that they didn't understand what they were citing. And my "scientific paper" wouldn't necessarily have to be correct, it could just be a theory in progress or something of that sort.

 

[nonbeliever314]

My personal response to the OP:
As a Christian, my belief is fundamentally based on one truth- the truth spoke in the bible. And in that truth, God is infallible.
The issue I take with some science is that it argues that truth.
My belief in God is simply stronger than belief in a scientific theory.
So even when presented with your 'ridiculously obvious' "absolutes", if they contradict what the bible teaches, I simply can't believe them.
Unfortunately, most of the hot topics (dinosaurs, age of the earth) are completely ignored by the bible, which makes it even harder to follow the science, since the popular scientific belief contradicts my Christian belief of what the bible teaches. And some (evolution) are blatantly contradictory to what the bible teaches.

I get that it's hard to understand faith.
How did a man come from dirt?
How could God just have always been? How does he have no beginning?
How did He just blink the earth and sun out of nothingness?
It's pretty amazing to think about... as a child I remember having a hard time wrapping my head around the "God has always been" one. But then, I just had faith. I don't understand and it's not for me TO understand. I just have to have faith that it's true, even without proof.

Everything you just said scares the heck out of me.

 

[riona]

Everything you just said scares the heck out of me.

umm... sorry?
Not sure what else to say. I'm sure not going to try to convert you LOL so I really have no rebuttal.
I guess I only hope that you can find peace with knowing that no matter what you say you won't convert me either. It's an "agree to disagree" topic and there's no sense in you getting worked up about it. I certainly don't get worked up that people don't believe the bible. I would suggest just trying to make peace with it because it probably won't ever change.

 

[TillICollapse]

My personal response to the OP:
As a Christian, my belief is fundamentally based on one truth- the truth spoke in the bible. And in that truth, God is infallible.
The issue I take with some science is that it argues that truth.
My belief in God is simply stronger than belief in a scientific theory.
So even when presented with your 'ridiculously obvious' "absolutes", if they contradict what the bible teaches, I simply can't believe them.
Unfortunately, most of the hot topics (dinosaurs, age of the earth) are completely ignored by the bible, which makes it even harder to follow the science, since the popular scientific belief contradicts my Christian belief of what the bible teaches. And some (evolution) are blatantly contradictory to what the bible teaches.

I get that it's hard to understand faith.
How did a man come from dirt?
How could God just have always been? How does he have no beginning?
How did He just blink the earth and sun out of nothingness?
It's pretty amazing to think about... as a child I remember having a hard time wrapping my head around the "God has always been" one. But then, I just had faith. I don't understand and it's not for me TO understand. I just have to have faith that it's true, even without proof.

There are many beliefs derived from "I believe the Bible" which contradict each other, or are debatable. For example, "once saved always saved", or which laws/rules to follow or not follow, Law verses Grace, what is a sin or what isn't a sin, perspectives on the creation account, etc.

I'm not asking for you to tell me what you believe to be true concerning any of those, so if you feel the need to begin to "tell me the truth", please stop. It will, for one, risk getting the thread shut down. What I'm wanting to ask however, is the following:

Pick a belief that you derive from what you believe to be based on "the Bible" and you believe this to be true ... but it's a belief that other Christians may argue is not true, and they use the Bible as well to back their own belief. Perhaps "once saved always saved" is an example. Whether you are for it, or against it ... do you ever consider that you may be incorrect concerning your view, since other Christians will, using the same Bible, derive a different conclusion ? Or do you believe you have it correct, they have it wrong, and they merely don't understand ?

 

[riona]

That's not exactly what I'm trying to get at. It's quite the opposite. Say I authored a scientific paper that appeared to be in favor for some argument for the existence of God. Then I have a debate with someone quoting my scientific work to back up their God argument. But then I say you misinterpreted my paper, that's not actually what it means, so that part of your argument is invalid. At that point they don't say "Oops, I stand corrected", they try to get around it somehow and deny the fact that they didn't understand what they were citing. And my "scientific paper" wouldn't necessarily have to be correct, it could just be a theory in progress or something of that sort.

Perhaps, like many theories or articles or stories, certain statements are interpreted by people in multiple ways.

Reminds me of an old House episode.. he said, 'when presented with a list of symptoms a rheumatologist will see lupus, an oncologist sees cancer, and a endocrinologist sees thyroid disorder.'
It's easy to use the facts to fit what we believe, even when the same facts prove something else to someone else based on what they believe.

 

[riona]

There are many beliefs derived from "I believe the Bible" which contradict each other, or are debatable. For example, "once saved always saved", or which laws/rules to follow or not follow, Law verses Grace, what is a sin or what isn't a sin, perspectives on the creation account, etc.

I'm not asking for you to tell me what you believe to be true concerning any of those, so if you feel the need to begin to "tell me the truth", please stop. It will, for one, risk getting the thread shut down. What I'm wanting to ask however, is the following:

Pick a belief that you derive from what you believe to be based on "the Bible" and you believe this to be true ... but it's a belief that other Christians may argue is not true, and they use the Bible as well to back their own belief. Perhaps "once saved always saved" is an example. Whether you are for it, or against it ... do you ever consider that you may be incorrect concerning your view, since other Christians will, using the same Bible, derive a different conclusion ? Or do you believe you have it correct, they have it wrong, and they merely don't understand ?

I can honestly answer "I don't know".
I don't know enough about different religions' specific beliefs to know what is different between what I believe and what they believe.
What I CAN say is that we ALL interpret the bible differently, and take from it what God wants us to. There are many messages in His word that affect some people differently than others.

It's like you and I hearing the same song but getting a completely different message from it. It's the same lyrics, the same singer, the same melody... but it means something different to me than it does to you.

 

[TillICollapse]

I can honestly answer "I don't know".
I don't know enough about different religions' specific beliefs to know what is different between what I believe and what they believe.
What I CAN say is that we ALL interpret the bible differently, and take from it what God wants us to. There are many messages in His word that affect some people differently than others.

I wasn't talking about different religions, I was talking about differences within Christianity.

It's like you and I hearing the same song but getting a completely different message from it. It's the same lyrics, the same singer, the same melody... but it means something different to me than it does to you.

So in this view, do you believe we can all derive different "truths", and that's okay, so long as we are all listening to the same song (the Bible) ? IOW ... it doesn't really matter what we believe, so long as we base those beliefs on the Bible ?

 

[JacksBratt]

Lots of errors here. I'm really pressed for time so I'll give you a link here that will explain the principle. It's by Dawson Bethrick who has written extensively on the subject. until I have time to answer your questions this should give you good grounding in the principle.

Katholon.com/Poe.htm

Wow, that sure is a lot of words. Observing a stapler, imagining it could change. Imagining food in your cupboard and on and on. All this consciousness and existence, conscious or existence.

It's all written so eloquently too. All those big words, "primacy" "axiom of existence"

However, the intellect of some egg head talking about staplers, existence related to consciousness and does not prove there is no God. You cannot prove such a thing. And, like you said "That existence has primacy is undeniable". It is possible for something to exist without us being aware.

Well some people aren't aware. But I am. God exists. It's not for me to prove that He does. It's for others to prove that He doesn't. This "mental gymnastic philosophy" may impress some. To me it's just arrogant rants by self perceived intellectuals.

 

[JacksBratt]

My personal response to the OP:
As a Christian, my belief is fundamentally based on one truth- the truth spoke in the bible. And in that truth, God is infallible.
The issue I take with some science is that it argues that truth.
My belief in God is simply stronger than belief in a scientific theory.
So even when presented with your 'ridiculously obvious' "absolutes", if they contradict what the bible teaches, I simply can't believe them.
Unfortunately, most of the hot topics (dinosaurs, age of the earth) are completely ignored by the bible, which makes it even harder to follow the science, since the popular scientific belief contradicts my Christian belief of what the bible teaches. And some (evolution) are blatantly contradictory to what the bible teaches.

I get that it's hard to understand faith.
How did a man come from dirt?
How could God just have always been? How does he have no beginning?
How did He just blink the earth and sun out of nothingness?
It's pretty amazing to think about... as a child I remember having a hard time wrapping my head around the "God has always been" one. But then, I just had faith. I don't understand and it's not for me TO understand. I just have to have faith that it's true, even without proof.

This is a great post. Only one thing I can help you with. This is the statement about the bible completely ignoring dinosaurs. Well, check this out and tell me what animal God is talking about? Think brontosaurs.

Job 40:15-24New King James Version (NKJV)
15 “Look now at the behemoth,a]">[a] which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him,
And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;
The willows by the brook surround him.
23 Indeed the river may rage,
Yet he is not disturbed;
He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,
24 Though he takes it in his eyes,
Or one pierces his nose with a snare.

 

[True Scotsman]

Wow, that sure is a lot of words. Observing a stapler, imagining it could change. Imagining food in your cupboard and on and on. All this consciousness and existence, conscious or existence.

It's all written so eloquently too. All those big words, "primacy" "axiom of existence"

However, the intellect of some egg head talking about staplers, existence related to consciousness and does not prove there is no God. You cannot prove such a thing. And, like you said "That existence has primacy is undeniable". It is possible for something to exist without us being aware.

Well some people aren't aware. But I am. God exists. It's not for me to prove that He does. It's for others to prove that He doesn't. This "mental gymnastic philosophy" may impress some. To me it's just arrogant rants by self perceived intellectuals.

My argument does prove such a thing. It is logically valid and its premises are true. You've just conceded that existence has primacy so you have conceded premise two. If you still deny the conclusion then you deny the law of non contradiction which means you are not using logic.

Of course you are free to do that. Nothing forces you to be rational. You have volition. I note that your only real criticism is that the paper uses to many big words. Well I can dumb all of it down for you. Wishing doesn't make it so. It's good that you do not deny this.

Since you have no other criticisms other than the assertion that I can not prove such a thing, then my argument stands unrefuted

 

[Colter]

You have provided nothing but assertions and quoted from the Urania book. I have provided a rock solid, valid and sound argument which by the way also proves that the Uranti book is a fraud. Now show that my argument commits a fallacy or that any one of the premises are false. If you can't do it then you owe me an apology.

The philosophy of Objectivism is an unsubstantiated assertion in itself. Ayan Rands unpopular philosophy has been widly refuted and dismissed by academics. Those who have refuted the philosophy made some of the same observations that I have. This link covers it fairly well http://templestream.blogspot.com/2014/01/rands-primacy-of-existence-argument.html

 

[True Scotsman]

The philosophy of Objectivism is an unsubstantiated assertion in itself. Ayan Rands unpopular philosophy has been widly refuted and dismissed by academics. Those who have refuted the philosophy made some of the same observation that I have. This link covers it fairly well http://templestream.blogspot.com/2014/01/rands-primacy-of-existence-argument.html

Is this true because you want it to be?

 

[True Scotsman]

The philosophy of Objectivism is an unsubstantiated assertion in itself. Ayan Rands unpopular philosophy has been widly refuted and dismissed by academics. Those who have refuted the philosophy made some of the same observation that I have. This link covers it fairly well http://templestream.blogspot.com/2014/01/rands-primacy-of-existence-argument.html

This does nothing to answer the argument. What some random bloggers and some unnamed academics that you googled up think about Objectivism is irrellivent to the argument I have presented. Why do you rely on others to do your thinking? Why don't you refute these principles yourself. Since the POE is a dirivetive of the Objectivist axioms, if you can refute them, then you can refute my argument and all of Objectivism. I'll help you out. Let's start with the first one. Existence exists. Go ahead and refute it. It should be easy since it is just mental gymnastics. I'm waiting.

 

[juvenissun]

That's not exactly what I'm trying to get at. It's quite the opposite. Say I authored a scientific paper that appeared to be in favor for some argument for the existence of God. Then I have a debate with someone quoting my scientific work to back up their God argument. But then I say you misinterpreted my paper, that's not actually what it means, so that part of your argument is invalid. At that point they don't say "Oops, I stand corrected", they try to get around it somehow and deny the fact that they didn't understand what they were citing. And my "scientific paper" wouldn't necessarily have to be correct, it could just be a theory in progress or something of that sort.

I do understand what you said at the first place.
What can you do to those people except walking away?

 

[Colter]

This does nothing to answer the argument. What some random bloggers and some unnamed academics that you googled up think about Objectivism is irrellivent to the argument I have presented. Why do you rely on others to do your thinking? Why don't you refute these principles yourself. Since the POE is a dirivetive of the Objectivist axioms, if you can refute them, then you can refute my argument and all of Objectivism. I'll help you out. Let's start with the first one. Existence exists. Go ahead and refute it. It should be easy since it is just mental gymnastics. I'm waiting.

Existance exists

* When? The statment is arbitrary. The material world that we interact with came into existance at a point in time, it is the effect not both cause and effect simultaneously. Primacy dosent have a beginning. Critics of this contorted assertion have called this conflating “existence” with the natural “universe" hence the term "materialist presuppositionalism."

* What existance? Things and beings exist relative to something, just stateing that existance exists independently is unsupported. Contingent reality is not prime reality, an ultimate reality, or a metaphysical primacy.

 

[True Scotsman]

Existance exists

* When? The statment is arbitrary. The material world that we interact with came into existance at a point in time, it is the effect not both cause and effect simultaneously. Primacy dosent have a beginning. Critics of this contorted assertion have called this conflating “existence” with the natural “universe" hence the term "materialist presuppositionalism."

* What existance? Things and beings exist relative to something, just stateing that existance exists independently is unsupported. Contingent reality is not prime reality, an ultimate reality, or a metaphysical primacy.

Right now Colter. Are you seriously suggesting that the statement that existence exists has no objective basis?

 

[riona]

I wasn't talking about different religions, I was talking about differences within Christianity.

So in this view, do you believe we can all derive different "truths", and that's okay, so long as we are all listening to the same song (the Bible) ? IOW ... it doesn't really matter what we believe, so long as we base those beliefs on the Bible ?

Sorry I don't know how to answer your first question. Is my Christianity not based upon what my religion has taught me?
Even your original example... 'once saved always saved'... I think the belief or disbelief of that statement varies from religion to religion. It's not "Christianity" that changes, but rather our interpretation of the bible, guided by what religion we listen to. At least, that is what makes sense to me.

As to your second question.. I don't know what IOW means. But yes, I absolutely believe that there are different truths in the bible, and each one is defined by what our religion teaches us. I have heard some religions believe that the way to get to heaven is merely to accept Jesus as your savior. Others believe it takes a lot more than that. Some believe you must speak in tongues. The bible does discuss each of these things, but I'm not sure there's any clear cut scripture with a numbered list. Wouldn't that be helpful? Here we have the 10 commandments, and here we have the 10 things you must do to enter heaven LOL

I think I understand what you're looking for... if I believe something different from another Christian, do I accept that maybe I'm wrong and they are right?
Yes and no.
I accept that our interpretations differ. In a belief system, it's very ... hmm what's the word.. ignorant, I might say, to claim that I know the absolute truth and another's belief is wrong. In the same way that it would be ignorant to reverse the roles.
But I think that as long as we're both reading the same book God will grant us understanding in his own way.

 

[TillICollapse]

Sorry I don't know how to answer your first question. Is my Christianity not based upon what my religion has taught me?
Even your original example... 'once saved always saved'... I think the belief or disbelief of that statement varies from religion to religion. It's not "Christianity" that changes, but rather our interpretation of the bible, guided by what religion we listen to. At least, that is what makes sense to me.

I may not understand how you're using the term "religion" then.

Within Christianity ... one Christian can believe they are "once saved always saved" and base that belief by referencing Bible scriptures. Another Christian can believe they are capable of losing their salvation depending on choices, etc. Both are part of Christianity ... the same religion. It's one example. Your next section makes me think you are using the word "religion" in a way different than I'm used to.

As to your second question.. I don't know what IOW means.

Sorry, internet shorthand IOW means "In Other Words".

But yes, I absolutely believe that there are different truths in the bible, and each one is defined by what our religion teaches us. I have heard some religions believe that the way to get to heaven is merely to accept Jesus as your savior. Others believe it takes a lot more than that. Some believe you must speak in tongues. The bible does discuss each of these things, but I'm not sure there's any clear cut scripture with a numbered list. Wouldn't that be helpful? Here we have the 10 commandments, and here we have the 10 things you must do to enter heaven LOL

From this, I take it you view different denominations as different religions. Thus Pentecostals will be one religion, perhaps Methodists are another religion, etc. Yes ?

And I don't know what LOL means.

(Just Kidding)

I think I understand what you're looking for... if I believe something different from another Christian, do I accept that maybe I'm wrong and they are right?
Yes and no.
I accept that our interpretations differ. In a belief system, it's very ... hmm what's the word.. ignorant, I might say, to claim that I know the absolute truth and another's belief is wrong. In the same way that it would be ignorant to reverse the roles.
But I think that as long as we're both reading the same book God will grant us understanding in his own way.

This is more or less what I was looking for.

Having said that ... when you say this: My belief is fundamentally based on one truth- the truth spoke in the bible. And in that truth, God is infallible.

How can you say your belief is based on one truth-the truth spoke in the bible, but in the next breath say those truths are defined by what the different religions teach, acknowledge they can differ, or not totally understand, etc ? Do you see that as basing your belief on something ill-defined, shifting, and allowed to be self-contradictory ? In this context, do you see religion and the bible as being the product of human beings only ?

For example, if I say, "I believe in the Constitution of the US" ... although a group of us may differ in how we think it should be applied, we have a common reference point. We may have different goals, different interpretations of what some things mean, etc ... but we are all referencing the same thing. What we CAN do, however, is amend it, change it .... change our minds, etc. IOW (in other words), it's probably not going to be viewed as infallible.

Do you see the bible and religion as something similar ? It's all subject to change and shift, and that's okay ?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

cannot be denied. .

Oh yes, it can be denied. You need to figure this one thing out . . . . anything can be denied, even the most obvious truths.

 

[JacksBratt]

My argument does prove such a thing. It is logically valid and its premises are true. You've just conceded that existence has primacy so you have conceded premise two. If you still deny the conclusion then you deny the law of non contradiction which means you are not using logic.

Of course you are free to do that. Nothing forces you to be rational. You have volition. I note that your only real criticism is that the paper uses to many big words. Well I can dumb all of it down for you. Wishing doesn't make it so. It's good that you do not deny this.

Since you have no other criticisms other than the assertion that I can not prove such a thing, then my argument stands unrefuted

Your logic falls down when you state that something cannot exist without our consciousness of it. Or, premise #2.

"Premise two is true because it would have to be true even to deny it." This statement proves nothing. It is empty.

It's like the child who defines the word using the word.

This goes way back to my college years of Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance or some fool thing.

My teacher asked that question, you know the one, "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it"? That question..... He was serious, I was in a different elective the next day. I wasn't wasting my hard earned $$ to talk in circles with people over nonsensical hyperbole.

Many things exist without our conscious awareness. A tumor on someones liver. Does it only exist when it is discovered? A leak in a spare tire. I guess when you need the spare and find that it's deflated, then, and only then, does the leak exist.

All of this doesn't even scratch the surface in any way of proving that God doesn't exist.

On top of it all. God, created this universe, the laws that govern it, the space, the time, the light, the darkness.

He stands outside of this whole created realm. He is not affected by it, He is immune to it.

Does the painting say to the artist "I am not conscious of you, I am not aware of you, I have no proof of you, So you don't exist?"

Truth is truth whether you are aware of it, deny it, believe it or oblivious to it. Truth stands, unchanged.