This of course is assuming it has contradictions and has been changed over time. Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

3,223 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 18 years ago by WisenHiemer

If the Bible is full of contradictions, do you have a theory why they didn`t edit them out when they were changing it?
This of course is assuming it has contradictions and has been changed over time.


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next (showing 76-100 of 175)

Bottom Last Post

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:35:25 AM EST (GMT-5)
You got a point there Omegavolt, -but- the fact remains that even from several different perspective everyone can come to the same conclusion, an innate "attribute" of logical proof. This fact does not empower empirical proof any validation of existence though.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:36:05 AM EST (GMT-5)
thats be against what the bible is about.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:36:50 AM EST (GMT-5)
dont have a clue, but changing it wont change the contradictions, not for the older generations anyway, if we know about them already.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:39:09 AM EST (GMT-5)
Finally someone who sees one of the main differences between belief and proof. Thank you, Morguebabe.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:40:16 AM EST (GMT-5)
of i just looked at grammer - I just woke up 20 mintues ago
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 8:59:23 AM EST (GMT-5)
"the fact remains that even from several different perspective everyone can come to the same conclusion, an innate "attribute" of logical proof."

I agree with that. What I had wanted to point out in my previous statement was simply that proof isnt always correct, not that it was never correct.

Even still, logical proof is not so cut and dry as we would like to believe. Because if it was, surely all things logical would be accepted as fact, however, its clear that they arent always. Do you see where Im coming from? We would be able to build the entire scope of human knowledge on logical things. But even that which can be logically proven cannot ever be 100% accurate, because we dont know if something illogical exists and can prove otherwise. This is why we cant prove logically that God doenst exist, since God exists outside of logic.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 10:16:16 AM EST (GMT-5)
Still sounds like a pure logic which becomes tainted - if I have use that phrase - with our impure subjective reasoning. As long we try to reach conclusions with a subjective outlook, then that's exactly what we're gonna get; faulty conclusions based on our own beliefs to concepts and proofs we perceive as logic, this it's subjective to the core.

If we can find ourselves free of subjective reasoning and understanding, transcending those boundaries to pure logic (mathematics is the classical example) then we become able to reach pure logical conclusions.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 10:16:29 AM EST (GMT-5)
But we can also make subjective and objective statements out from any statement. for example:
"This is a wonderfully red house. But it's to sold at awful price of 800,000$."

Subjective: "wonderfully", "awful", "but","sold"
Objective: "red", "price", "800,000$".
What scientists recently have painfully learned is that with any observation you need a reference-systems to make the observation have any sense of understanding the observation itself. In the above example, the reference-system is myself...

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 10:25:18 AM EST (GMT-5)
I'm not sure about logical proof not being cut and dry. Logic is based on a set of absolutely solid laws and rules, but this itself is in part, I think, the reason that logical proof cannot easily be applied to all aspects of human knowledge. When all the rules are applied that need to be, they're very restrictive as to what kind of results they can give. There's almost always alternative possibilities which could explain the phenomenon in question, and which can't be absolutely discounted, such as the presence or influence of God.

Also, I think faith can exist without proof. If for some reason I did believe that the sun was going to explode tomorrow, with no smidgeon of proof, it would be a valid faith, but widely regarded as ridiculous, and would probably be shown as such tomorrow. Evidence can reinforce faith, but I don't think it's a prerequisite.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 10:49:43 AM EST (GMT-5)
True. Faith does in its loose definition not have any boundaries of conclusions other than that they have to be base on a subjective conclusion, I'm unsure if faith can be based on pure logic or not.

"Beyond the boundaries of knowledge lies belief" -myself

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 10:56:38 AM EST (GMT-5)
I don't think faith has to be based on logic, or needs to, but I think it has to be able to stand up to logic. There are logical arguments against most things, but if your faith can withstand them and not be rendered trivial by them, then I think it's still a valid faith.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 10:58:05 AM EST (GMT-5)
How is saying something is outside logic supposed to be taken? Logic is not some bounding substance - it is the way of systematically talking about things, and to say something is outside of logic is to preclude its being mentioned in any meaningful way. God could have no influence in our world if he was outside logic.

The reason the sum of human knowledge about everything has not been built up from scratch using only logic is that we do not have unlimited capability with logic, and we are prone to error. What some can perceive straight away logically cannot be seen simply by others because people's capacity for, and depth of, understanding varies, just as it does with mathematics. Yet logic, like mathematics, permits of absolute proof. The limits are not, however, available to us. Furthermore, as Nozzer implied, pure logic is not necessarily practical to apply to everyday situations - there are too many variables to cover, and most things cannot be deduced a priori.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 11:04:15 AM EST (GMT-5)
senorita, you clearly missed the point again. It is not proven against all doubt that the sun will not be destroyed tomorrow, and there is a physical possibility that it might. On your reading, it is an issue of faith to believe it will not. On mine, it is not faith, because there is every justification to believe that it will still be there tomorrow, and no real reason to think otherwise.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 12:22:47 PM EST (GMT-5)
"What scientists recently have painfully learned is that with any observation you need a reference-systems to make the observation have any sense of understanding the observation itself"

Sal: precisely. The reason a reference is required is because even objective subjects, such as 'red', can be interpreted differently by everyone. Exactly which of the 100,000 shades of red were you refering to??

"If for some reason I did believe that the sun was going to explode tomorrow, with no smidgeon of proof, it would be a valid faith,"

Nozzer, notice that you said, 'if for some reason'. To believe in something, you would have to have a reason for believing that, otherwise youre merely making a statement. If you say 'the sun will explode tomorrow' and you *honestly* believe that it will, not just saying it will, you will have your own reasons for believing that, no matter how off the wall they may be.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 12:23:44 PM EST (GMT-5)
"God could have no influence in our world if he was outside logic."

Kyry, doesnt the notion of God itself defy logic?

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 3:23:00 PM EST (GMT-5)
Perhaps "for some reason" wasn't quite the phrase I meant, but I agree that any belief I hold is likely to have a reason; but surely everything has a reason in some form, causality and all that. But whatever sparked off my hypothetical belief doesn't have to be a logical justification of it, or even an off-the-wall one, except that it's what makes sense to me.

And I don't think that God defies logic, exactly. Certain ideas associated with Him might do, but I don't know of any entirely logical processes which would lead you to deduce "Therefore God does not exist." There might not be any logical processes leading you to believe that he does, either, but that just means that there's no proof either way, so an opinion either way relies on some degree of faith.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 3:11:30 AM EST (GMT-5)
omega, to me that makes no sense. Concepts consist in their meaning. Logic provides a system by which concepts have meaning, and the conceptual is inextricably bound to logic. To reject logic is to reject the concept altogether. So a concept outside of logic is no concept at all.

I'm not sure if I explained that clearly - it's difficult to express verbally. But a related way of phrasing it is in saying that we cannot give meaning to something outside of logic as we cannot refer to it, given that reference is logic-bounded.

Sal, your point about frames of reference: I'm not entirely sure what you're saying by this - could you expand, please? omega's example about the subjectivity of colour doesn't seem to work because "colour" - ie wavelength - can be measured objectively by, for example, a photospectrometer.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 6:18:17 AM EST (GMT-5)
"So a concept outside of logic is no concept at all."

Perhaps only in *our* minds. As you have said, our level of logical reasoning is not perfected yet. Whose to say that the seemingly illogical is, in fact, logical, but we have yet to be able to comprehend that level of logic? Aside from that, concepts need not be logical. I can conceive of something illogical simply by thinking of something that defies logic.

"omega's example about the subjectivity of colour doesn't seem to work because "colour" - ie wavelength - can be measured objectively by, for example, a photospectrometer."

Not many people use a photospectrometer to determine the color of their house though, right? Have you ever told someone to look at a red car, and when they look they say something like, "Thats not red, its dark orange."? This is the type of subjectivity Im talking about. Sensory perception. Without the aid of machinery.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 6:19:48 AM EST (GMT-5)
If perception is all we have to go on, concepts like truth, proof, and evidence become a little broad and open to interpretation. To some people, the sun rising is 'proof' of God. And if God does exist, then yes, it would be proof of Him. But until we know that for sure, anyones idea of 'proof' could be proof.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 6:25:12 AM EST (GMT-5)
omega, yeah, but not if it contradicts what we *know* to be true. It's like what I've sometimes said about mathematics. A four-year-old knows that 2 + 2 = 4, and so does a maths professor, but the professor's greater knowledge does not overrule what the kid already knows. In any case, this is still all within logic. Speaking of something at a higher level of logic is still speaking of something within logic.

Such as what? You can talk about a thing being outside of logic, but can you refer to it? That's the distinction - just writing down "thing that defies logic" does not mean you are referring to anything, any more than writing "square circle" imbues any logical validity to that.

Fair enough - but I figured we were talking in the sphere of science.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 6:28:37 AM EST (GMT-5)
It's possible to get incredibly pedantic and existential about whether anything can really be "proved", but not very helpful. And while I agree that our level of reasoning isn't perfect, and any kind of real proof that God exists may not be possible for us to concieve with our current understanding, I think logical processes are something of which we can be genuinely certain.

I am a human.
All humans have two legs.
Therefore I have two legs.

This is a logical deduction; if the first two facts are accurate, then the third one is also certainly accurate, as a result of the first. It makes entirely logical sense (obviously whether or not the facts in question are true is another matter) and I think this reasoning in a way transcends our own mental limitations.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 6:29:07 AM EST (GMT-5)
Well, not really. Many proofs rely in no way upon sense data which, I agree, can be fallible.

But the example with the sun rising is still not a proof. It may have logical validity in the sense that the conclusion follows from the premises:

1. If the sun rises, God exists.
2. The sun rises.
C. God exists.

But the first premise is obviously question-begging. Why should any reasonable person think such a premise would be true. And furthermore, there are external reasons to suppose the conclusion not to be certain, so it is not a valid proof in the sense of its premises AND conclusion being true AND the conclusion following from them.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 6:29:47 AM EST (GMT-5)
(directed at omega)
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 6:49:02 AM EST (GMT-5)
"Such as what? You can talk about a thing being outside of logic, but can you refer to it?"

How about a river that flows upstream? Logic would say that such a thing cannot occur, yet I can conceive of it.

And while I understand that the statement, "If the sun rises, God exists." is question-begging, but I didnt necessarily say that. I said that if God *does* exist, then the sun rising would be proof of his existance.

1. If God exists, the sun rises.
2. God exists.
3. The sun rises.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 6:49:57 AM EST (GMT-5)
"Many proofs rely in no way upon sense data"

Could you provide me with an example of this please, so I might be able to better understand where you're coming from?


Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next (showing 76-100 of 175)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 If you were allowed to make all guns OR all abortions illegal in your country, which one would you choose to eliminate?

2 Do you still wear a face mask in public?

3 Do you think it's really all that surprising that Iraq detainees are being abused and killed, considering people who voluntarily join the military have no problem with violence?

4 do you prefer fractions or decimals?

5 Are you concerned about the state of the American health care system?

6 Should advocating self harm or suicide result in a permanent ban?

7 Do you think these pictures of Cindy Crawford`s 5-year-old daughter are inappropriate for such a young child?

8 Corn on the cob or candy corn: which do you prefer ?

9 Do you prefer croissants or bagels?

10 Which sport takes more guts and hard work?

More Questions
 
Edit