UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:You mention ass and look who turns up?
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I am not trying to be a smartass here.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Carefully. It would be easy, far too east, to look for words, passages, or ideas which back up whatever your new belief is. Much better to read the Bible with an open mind, read the Bible with an open mind, and not be too worried if you go days, or even weeks without it saying anything. I find that Lectio Divina helps, but there are other ways which suit different personalities better.
How do we use the Bible to check our beliefs and verify their validity, or lack thereof? Is there a certain part to read?
quote:Don't stick to only one tradition in you reading. As an evangelical I find that liberal theology makes me think (often I think I disagree). But it is better than just reading things that will agree with other things you've read.
How do we use tradition to check the validity of our beliefs? Which traditions? Whose traditions? How do we know those traditions are true and correct?
quote:Perhaps.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You already know Tortuf.
quote:The time to start worrying is when it stops shifting. As we learn something new about God our view of God changes. We can never know all there is to know about God, which is why there's room for different experiences of the Almighty.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Stuff's still shifting.
quote:In the Narnia book, Prince Caspian, Lucy sees Aslan after not seeing him for awhile. She says, "Aslan, you're bigger." He replies, "No, you are."
Originally posted by balaam:
As we learn something new about God our view of God changes. We can never know all there is to know about God, which is why there's room for different experiences of the Almighty.
quote:Not more difficult, impossible. If we are only concerned with validity, we are free to make our own premises and are not required to justify them. The realm of logical possibilities Plantinga lives in in his Free Will Defence is no different to the world of Sagan's Dragon in that he is free to dream up any old ad hoc rubbish to keep his argument valid. He just uses bigger words. Transworld Depravity? WTF?
This was a cunning stroke by Plantinga, who at a a stroke changed the arguments over theodicy, since valid arguments are weaker, but more difficult to refute.
quote:I agree about fallen angels, but in relation to the problem of evil, he was replying to those who had argued that God could not logically co-exist with evil. So this argument seems to be framed in terms of possibility, not actuality, and it's often called 'the logical problem of evil'.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:Not more difficult, impossible. If we are only concerned with validity, we are free to make our own premises and are not required to justify them. The realm of logical possibilities Plantinga lives in in his Free Will Defence is no different to the world of Sagan's Dragon in that he is free to dream up any old ad hoc rubbish to keep his argument valid. He just uses bigger words. Transworld Depravity? WTF?
This was a cunning stroke by Plantinga, who at a a stroke changed the arguments over theodicy, since valid arguments are weaker, but more difficult to refute.
Even better is his answer to the objection that the defence only covers moral evil, not the possibly more perplexing natural evils like tsunamis and birth defects. Ah, says Alvin, that could be rebellious spirits or fallen angels. Logically possible, see. But just another invisible dragon.
quote:That's just it. We all start with premises we can't validate. Sagan's Dragon is based on the same faulty premise that plagues the scientism of the new atheists. It's all just warmed over logical positivism.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:Not more difficult, impossible. If we are only concerned with validity, we are free to make our own premises and are not required to justify them. The realm of logical possibilities Plantinga lives in in his Free Will Defence is no different to the world of Sagan's Dragon in that he is free to dream up any old ad hoc rubbish to keep his argument valid. He just uses bigger words. Transworld Depravity? WTF?
This was a cunning stroke by Plantinga, who at a a stroke changed the arguments over theodicy, since valid arguments are weaker, but more difficult to refute.
Even better is his answer to the objection that the defence only covers moral evil, not the possibly more perplexing natural evils like tsunamis and birth defects. Ah, says Alvin, that could be rebellious spirits or fallen angels. Logically possible, see. But just another invisible dragon.
quote:Well, yeah, specifically the argument that to posit the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God in an evil world constitutes a logical contradiction. What I'm saying is that this is a simple task if you don't have to worry about how likely to be true any premises you choose to alter or introduce are. Essentially all Alvin does with the transworld depravity mullarkey is to redefine omnipotence to mean not quite omnipotent enough to create a world with free moral agents who will never choose evil. He doesn't take on the argument of Mackie and co, he just redefines the problem away. But Plantinga, and anyone who is inclined to be sympathetic to his argument, can just as easily say that the logical problem of evil is set up in a particular way in the first place and he isn't bound by the premises, because we we are only talking logical possibilities.
I agree about fallen angels, but in relation to the problem of evil, he was replying to those who had argued that God could not logically co-exist with evil. So this argument seems to be framed in terms of possibility, not actuality, and it's often called 'the logical problem of evil'.
quote:The thing is that logically, satan dunnit is no more feeble than transworld depravity. Less so, I'd say, by virtue of parsimony, but it just seems feeble in comparison because of the lack of ingenuity and fancy philosophical language.
But then, when he shifted to the evidential problem of evil, that is, so-called 'natural evil', his reply is feeble.
quote:The only premise in the Dragon in My Garage is one that says unquestioningly following an infinite chain of ad hoc assertions is not necessarily a smart move. It's not only nasty atheists and unreformed AJ Ayer groupies who might think that's a reasonable position.
Sagan's Dragon is based on the same faulty premise that plagues the scientism of the new atheists. It's all just warmed over logical positivism.
quote:The preference for simple explanations and hypotheses over complicated ones, all other things being equal, can be viewed as a rule of thumb. As such, the only validation required is the fact of its continued usefulness since the good Friar of Occam first proposed it back in 14th Century.
You seem to believe the rule of parsimony requires no validation. That's simply not the case
quote:I doubt they'd agree on the "All things being equal" part so the question of parsimony is moot.
Besides, any number of people will find it easier to accept some form of God is involved in the origin of the world than the explanations given by those arguing for a purely naturalist explanation.
quote:I try to avoid pointing out fallacies these days, but come on, an appeal to belief. Really?
If only one person believed in God or even had an experience of God, then Sagan's Dragon might be valid. That's not the case. So, it isn't.
quote:A fairly clear belief is at work here; that AIDS is curable by prayer and can be done with such regularity that it's a good, perhaps even necessary, step for former patients to destroy their anti-viral drugs.
NAIROBI, Kenya — At prayer healing services in some Pentecostal churches, pastors invite people infected with HIV to come forward for a public healing, after which they burn the person’s anti-retroviral medications and declare the person cured.
The “cure” is not free, and some people say they shell out their life savings to receive a miracle blessing and quit taking the drugs.
“I believe people can be healed of all kinds of sickness, including HIV, through prayers,” said Pastor Joseph Maina of Agmo Prayer Mountain, a Pentecostal church on the outskirts of Nairobi.
quote:From a purely Biblical point of view Pastor Maina's position is simple and straightforward: God can and does cure illness. Ms. Ng’ang’a’s view, on the other hand, most likely involves what BA would refer to as "logical positivism" and involves non-Biblical presuppositions, like the existence of viruses.
Some 6.3 million people are receiving anti-retroviral drugs in hospitals and clinics across eastern and southern Africa. The prayer healings are especially worrisome because people who quit treatment may become resistant to the drugs.
“We (clergy) must demonstrate leadership in this area,” said Jane Ng’ang’a, who coordinates the Kenya chapter of INERELA+, an interfaith network of religious leaders living with HIV. “We should be in the forefront, encouraging adherence to the medicines, as we offer psychological and mental support to those infected and affected.”
quote:Yes, it is a good rule of thumb. "I before e except after c" is also a good rule of thumb. Rules of thumb have exceptions. Sometimes they have multiple exceptions.
originally posted by Groestx:
The preference for simple explanations and hypotheses over complicated ones, all other things being equal, can be viewed as a rule of thumb. As such, the only validation required is the fact of its continued usefulness since the good Friar of Occam first proposed it back in 14th Century.
quote:No, the appeal is to experience. There is a difference. You can argue that nobody has ever had an experience of God. However, in doing so, you will only be asserting the superiority of one way of knowing over another. That way of knowing will also rely on presuppositions that must be accepted by faith.
originally posted by Groestx:
I try to avoid pointing out fallacies these days, but come on, an appeal to belief. Really?
quote:As Ockham might have said, "For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture."
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:No, the appeal is to experience. There is a difference. You can argue that nobody has ever had an experience of God. However, in doing so, you will only be asserting the superiority of one way of knowing over another. That way of knowing will also rely on presuppositions that must be accepted by faith.
originally posted by Groestx:
I try to avoid pointing out fallacies these days, but come on, an appeal to belief. Really?