Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 20:30:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1065 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > It's not simply a matter of refusing The Bible; what Tom is (and others
> > > are) asking is that The Bible not be taken as proof of God, since The Bible
> > > is only valid as such proof if one accepts it as the Word of God, which is
> > > circular.
> >
> > _Somewhat_ circular, yes, but the Bible isn't the sole "proof of God".
> > The most obvious evidence of the Creator being His creation.
>
> It is *entirely* circular to say that The Bible is proof of God at all.
> Now we're just sound-byting each other, but asserting that "creation" at
> large is proof of Christianity's God is circular again and hardly
> conclusive. I am willing to assume that the Universe exists, but the nature
> of its "creation" is not sufficient proof of any single deity. Why not
> Uranus and Gaea? Why not The Cosmic Egg? How can the Universe be claimed
> in itself to "prove" one God and not another (without resorting to The Bible)?
Correct me if I'm wrong Steve, but I think the argument goes something like:
'God will show Himself to you if you are faithful/willing to listen. You,
posessing free will may not be open to His presentation of Himself, and even
if you are open, may not believe that which you are shown.'
And it is that experience or feeling of revelation of God's holy spirit that
shall prove beyond all doubt that God is the one true god. Other things such
as creation and the Bible may suggest a God (they may suggest other things
as well), but it is only that connection to God that God shall initiate to
those who are worthy that shall "prove" His existence and consequently prove
the Bible and its teachings.
But again, we've reached subjectivism. As I mentioned earlier:
Objectivism: Something is true if it is falsifiable, supported by the
evidence, not contradicted by any evidence and logical.
Christian Subjectivism: Something is true if God says it is true.
The objectivist point OBVIOUSLY isn't true because the statement ITSELF
isn't falsifiable. But it doesn't need to be. It's a subjective definition
in and of itself. Nice that way, huh?
The Christian subjectivist perspective, however, is 100% circular. Does God
say something is true if He says it is true? Yes? Ok. Circular. The only
question left is to find what it is that God says or does not say.
Can we base something on either of these two assumptions about truth more
'correctly' than the other? No. But I'll take the non-circular arguement,
thank you. And a coke. Biggie sized, please.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Nitpick, for things in general, that's only sufficient to show that they are "likely" to be true. We used to think that indivisible atoms were likely to be true. They gave good predictions and were a good tool. Now we know they're not, but we (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) It is *entirely* circular to say that The Bible is proof of God at all. Now we're just sound-byting each other, but asserting that "creation" at large is proof of Christianity's God is circular again and hardly conclusive. I am willing to (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
