Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:03:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1320 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> I could try the turn-around on you:
>
> - Science is wrong, cuz it says the world is flat.
> - That's not *real* science, that's been disproven
> - Ok then, science is wrong because it professes the existance of ether.
> - Well, that's not *real* science either because that's [also] been disproven.
But as you of all people konw, science doesn't declare truths; it's a
system of explanation endlessly refined to fit more closely with
observation. Christianity, by contrast, declares certain absolutes that
remain absolute regardless of evolving comprehension.
> Etc. Just because you're eager to debate someone who believes in these ideals
> doesn't mean that the person you *are* debating clings to them.
If James were any kind of pal, he'd believe what I tell him to believe, so
I can refute him more easily!
> which experiences are unique to *you*? How do you decide which
> experience relates to you, and which relates to a part of you? And provided
> that, would another being be capable of sharing certain experiences? Or does
> perspective matter? And if perspective matters, then we're presupposing an
> existance of something to perspect to, hence circular reasoning. Ick!
Well, if any two things exist, then each can be considered in relation to
(from the perspective of) the other. Perspective results, at its most
basic, from
I would say an experience can be shared but can't be perfectly shared,
> > I'm afraid that analogy fails because any comparision between an infinite
> > God and any finite entity is invalid. However, I would still be "me"
> > without a cell, but that cell would not still be "me."
>
> Ooo, I tried to make you avoid the trap, but you walked in. How many cells do
> you need to lose before you're no longer you? Which cells? In what grouping?
Heh. Not really a trap, though; "I" am that portion still able to assert
that it is "I," most likely the part that retains sentience (such as it is).
If by some malfunction of the transporter "I" am split in two, then each is
able to call itself "I," but neither is the same "I" that "I" am.
In any case, the analogy still fails for God the Infinite (unless you're
finally admitting that *I'm* infinite, in which case I say "It's about time!")
> Again, I think you're focusing on Christianity in general rather than James's
> view on it, which I thing "should" be the subject at hand. Doubtless I agree
> that certain sects of Christianity are wrong. But in order to disprove
> Christianity at large, you'll have to pick it apart to its bare bones and
> disprove one or all of them, not idle on the specifics which aren't universal
> for Xtianity.
Ah. Point conceded (at least as it pertains to James' view specifically).
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
