Why do discussions about religion always lump God and afterlife together?

[robert68]

Do you have a hand?

Yes

"How do you know?"
I feel it and see it

"What if you burn it and don't feel anything?"
I'd probably have paralysis or something.

"Is there no fire or no hand?"
No, I'd still seen the fire and hand, as would others.

"What is pain and how do you know you sensed it?"
I feel it.

"Do you know you are sensing something?" Yes
"Can you sense the sense that you are sensing something?"
??

"Can you sense the sense of the sense that you sense something?"
???

"How can you make a statement of truth based on your individual and fallible sense observations?"
One's senses are a truth about what they sense.

All this from one who believes truth can only be communicated through a 2-3 thousand year old human grapevine, that his senses gets to pick out and interpret.

 

[erowe1]

If one only knows what a creator wants them to know, they have no mind

First of all, I don't see where you get that conclusion.

Second of all, the quote you bolded doesn't say that one only knows what a creator wants them to know.

I said the things one “interacts with”, one knows are outside of their mind. One’s own will is used to interact with things; puppets don’t have a will or mind. One also uses their will (if they have one) to think, when in a conscious state. .

I don't see how any of this involves you not having axioms.

And if you do have axioms, then I don't see how you can avoid concluding that you're a puppet from what you said before. Nothing you say here addresses either of these points.

Do you think all non-theists are lying when they say they aren’t theists?

At the very least, they're involving themselves in contradictions. It may be more accurate to call their condition cognitive dissonance or denial.

 

[erowe1]

This wasn't from Merriam Webster, it was the Free Online Dictionary: "The world's most comprehensive dictionary: English, Spanish, German, French, Italian, Chinese, Portuguese, Dutch, Norwegian, Greek, Arabic, Polish, Turkish, Russian, Medical, Legal, and Financial Dictionaries, Thesaurus, Acronyms and Abbreviations, Idioms, Encyclopedia, a Literature Reference Library, and a Search Engine all in one!"

That's funny.

It's kind of like that scene in Elf where he congratulates the coffee shop with the sign claiming it has the world's best coffee.

 

[robert68]

...

And if you do have axioms, then I don't see how you can avoid concluding that you're a puppet from what you said before...

...

How so? A puppet of whom?

 

[robert68]

No number of independent observations can bring down the conclusion that something is true. This is the fallacy of induction. You obviously are not aware of this fundamental rule of thought.

I'd flunk "science lab"? You'd flunk logic, which is the ruling discipline. Science is based on a tissue of logical fallacies.

Nah, it’s not hard to memorize and recite lines of Calvinist dogma. You can’t do that kind of thing in science labs.

 

[erowe1]

How so? A puppet of whom?

I don't know. I'm not the one who thinks that knowing things axiomatically makes people puppets, which is what you said in post 141. As far as I can tell, you're trying to stand by that position.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Nah, it’s not hard to memorize and recite lines of Calvinist dogma. You can’t do that kind of thing in science labs.

If you can explain the logical fallacies of science pointed out in post #160, then we can move on with the conversation. But you can't, so you have a problem. The question is: are you going to be logical or not? My guess is you'd rather keep living in the illogical bliss of your religion.

 

[robert68]

I don't know. I'm not the one who thinks that knowing things axiomatically makes people puppets, which is what you said in post 141. As far as I can tell, you're trying to stand by that position.

That's not the part I put in bold of your words, in post 151: "But we know it because our creator designed us to know it." You're trying to turn things around. My questions were valid and you're ducking them.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The question is:...

Why? Why is that the question, S_F? Just because you hold out the tin cup doesn't mean everyone is going to help you fill it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Why? Why is that the question, S_F?

Logic is the ruling question because it can immediately discern the validity of any claim. I LOVE showing athiests how completely illogical their worldview is, because there is the myth that athiests are "logical" and Christians only "have faith".

God is logic. That is what the opening paragraph of the gospel of John declares. What a precious truth...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Logic is the ruling question because it can immediately discern the validity of any claim. I LOVE showing athiests how completely illogical their worldview is, because there is the myth that athiests are "logical" and Christians only "have faith".

God is logic. That is what the opening paragraph of the gospel of John declares. What a precious truth...

John who?

 

[Sola_Fide]

John who?

The apostle John. What? Do you want his fingerprints and social security number?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Sola_Fide and Theocrat, I think you would both enjoy very much a book called "The Holographic Universe." It goes hand in hand with what you're saying about what is really real.

It's not my position that the world is not real or something like that. My position is that I have a rational foundation for the senses, atheists don't. Atheistic worldviews rely on sensation and sensation itself is not a rational foundation for an explanation of anything. Its a bunch of circular argumentation and religious blind faith.

I'm more of an occasionalist, meaning that I believe God conveys information on the occasion of the sensation. The sensation is not what conveys the information (since it is irrational anyway that empricism can explain this) but it is God who conveys the information while the sensation occurs. I see this as a rational and Biblical epistemology because it is a logical extension of God's sovereignty in all things.

 

[erowe1]

That's not the part I put in bold of your words, in post 151: "But we know it because our creator designed us to know it." You're trying to turn things around. My questions were valid and you're ducking them.

Your questions were not valid.

What are you saying now? That if we have axioms and a creator then we don't have minds. But if we have axioms but no creator, then we do? The crucial point was the axioms. And you're the one ducking that. I still can't tell if you think that having axioms makes someone a puppet, or if you concede the point that we all have them. The fact that you've stretched this out so long without saying what you really mean about those things shows you're the one ducking.

I don't really have anything to duck. Your claim about puppets is nonsensical. If it makes any sense at all to you, then maybe that's because there's something in your reasoning that you haven't spelled out here.

 

[otherone]

God is logic. That is what the opening paragraph of the gospel of John declares. What a precious truth...

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.



Logic is not "declared". What is the basis of your perception?

 

[Sola_Fide]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.



Logic is not "declared". What is the basis of your perception?

The Greek word for "Word" there can be accurately translated as "logic".

In the beginning was the Logic. The Logic was with God, and the Logic WAS God. Jesus, the Son, is that eternal expression of Logic. God is Logic, and Logic is God.

We have nothing but to praise almighty God for His infinite wisdom and His tender mercy!

 

[Sola_Fide]

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 [a]He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Don't you see how the Logos is that eternal Truth? "In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men." The Light of men is their logic, which does not exist without the eternal Son who is the expression of that Logic.

That Light "shines in the darkness, but the darkness did not comprehend it".

Its too beautiful for words...

 

[otherone]

The Greek word for "Word" there can be accurately translated as "logic".

The word "Logic" is derived from "logos", which means "word" or "account", as well as several other things. Please show me the Bible version that actually chooses to substitute "Logic" for "Word", as I've never heard of this translation being used. It seems pivotal in your particular epistemology; I'd like to learn how you've come by it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The word "Logic" is derived from "logos", which means "word" or "account", as well as several other things. Please show me the Bible version that actually chooses to substitute "Logic" for "Word", as I've never heard of this translation being used. It seems pivotal in your particular epistemology; I'd like to learn how you've come by it.

Let the foremost Greek scholar and foremost Christian theologian in the history of the earth explain it to you:

The Logos
By Gordon Clark

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=255

 

[otherone]

Let the foremost Greek scholar and foremost Christian theologian in the history of the earth explain it to you:

Yes. People write books. Let's look at THE book. The writers of the bible chose "word" not "logic". Why?