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

3,254 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 ... 3 4 5 6 7 Next (showing 101-125 of 175)

Bottom Last Post

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 6:52:37 AM EST (GMT-5)
The river running upstream is a physical issue, not a logical issue.

Well, what you said was about proof of God.

In any case, the new formulation of the argument, which at best would be trivially true*, is still question-begging on account of its second premise.

*this is a technical term which makes a distinction between something which is substantively true.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 6:53:21 AM EST (GMT-5)
Mathematical proofs. Various semantic proofs. That kind of thing.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 7:11:26 AM EST (GMT-5)
Ok, lets use something completely illogical. But dont try to lure me into the 'square circle' conundrum, because it smacks of mathematics, which Ive already mentioned is an absolute truth and is outside of human perception. Because of this, false mathematics cannot exactly be 'perceived'. You can say 2+2=5 but that isnt exactly a concept. Mathematics are known laws which cannot be broken, perceived or otherwise.

Simple logic, on the other hand, can be perceived to be broken easily. For example:

Fire is hot.
Things that are hot burn me.
Fire burns me.

Its easy to see the logic in such an argument, but I can easily *conceive* of a fire that doesnt burn anything.

As far as the second premise of my argument being question-begging: Well, thats another 1000 post YT thread waiting to happen.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 7:14:26 AM EST (GMT-5)
Haha - true

But conceiving of a fire that does not burn is not a non-logical thing any more than the river is. It is not hard to conceive of a world where the physical laws are different such that this is a reality.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 7:35:20 AM EST (GMT-5)
Well, if thats the case, then that doenst leave us with much besides mathematics.

Im not trying to question the idea of logic itself. Logic is perfectly sound and can be used to determine many different things to be true, but unless the concepts in your argument are equally sound, then logic doesnt work. Its the fallibility of the concepts that Im trying to point out.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 7:43:40 AM EST (GMT-5)
Hmm, well your examples used valid logical *structure*. What it seems you are suggesting follows this form:

1. All fires burn
2. This is a fire
3. But it doesn't burn me
C. All fires do not burn

That's a reductio ad absurdum, the purpose of which is to show one of the premises to be false. In this case, it is working with an inductive generalisation - that is, all fires burn. But these, in themselves, are open to disproof, and there is no breaking of logic in doing so.

Otherwise, to say:

1. All fires burn
2. This is a fire
3. This does not burn

...is the same as saying 2 + 2 = 5. It's just contradictory.

As for concepts, one can approach it like this:

Concept of Raven

1. Ravens are birds
2. Ravens are black
3. Ravens fly
.
.
.

And so on. These are what are within the concept of a raven (regardless of whether we observe them to be so - this is purely conceptual).

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 7:45:46 AM EST (GMT-5)
God would have things like:

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omniscient
3. God is omnibenevolent
4. God is perfect
5. God is sovereign
.
.
.

Etc. But to suggest that something is outside of logic, as I see it, is to remove all of those, leaving the concept empty. All you might be able to say is:

1. God is outside logic

This I question, but it renders the very idea of God meaningless and empty.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 7:48:35 AM EST (GMT-5)
I see what youre saying, but the concept Im trying to point out isnt of something known. The concept of a raven is easy, because we see ravens and know they exist. But Im trying to point out that people can have proof of God without having physical evidence of God's existence.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 7:50:07 AM EST (GMT-5)
That's more like faith, then, because it's wholly subjective in nature.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 7:55:09 AM EST (GMT-5)
I can't catch up, but regarding your stance on God's relation to logic, kyry, would you be inclined toward accepting some interpretation that God *is* logic?
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 7:58:38 AM EST (GMT-5)
I'm not sure what that would mean. I certainly think that God would be contemporaneous with logic - in that God is eternal, and logic does not exist in time.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 8:01:33 AM EST (GMT-5)
You seem willing to accept, to a degree, that God is omnipresent; would that not lend itself pretty easily to His being practically synonymous with many things, including, perhaps, logic?
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 8:05:05 AM EST (GMT-5)
I've never been quite comfortable with the everyday notion of omnipresence, but granting that he is, I don't see that it follows that God *is* logic, only that he is synergistic with it (but then, so are we). If there was nothing at all, the laws of logic would still, as I see it, hold.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 8:08:43 AM EST (GMT-5)
And I see God as the creator of logic. If He chose to break the laws of logic, I trust He could, but I think His intelligence and master plan took that into account ahead of time and He wouldn't have created them if He would ever have a need to break them.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 8:16:06 AM EST (GMT-5)
I see logic, like numbers, as uncreatable. They don't exist in time, and so cannot come into being. I view God in the same light, such that questions of creation are meaningless with respect to him and them.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 8:18:43 AM EST (GMT-5)
I see.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 8:22:06 AM EST (GMT-5)
By that, I don't necessarily mean God is "outside of time". That would have rather strange consequences for religions that view him as a person. Something outside of time is not capable of change and so cannot think or react etc. I see him more as temporally eternal - ie he always did and always will exist.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 9:08:32 AM EST (GMT-5)
I'm having trouble keeping up, but I think I agree with kyry about the way logic works. If we assume that fire is hot and things that are hot burn you, then we can deduce that fire will burn you. However, to concieve of a fire that doesn't burn you is to imagine the falseness of one of your premises. Whether you can visualise yourself being in contact with some fire and not being burnt isn't really relevant - it's impossible to entertain the notion that such an event might actually happen without holding some doubt about at least one of your assumptions.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 9:11:02 AM EST (GMT-5)
Also, omegavolt, quoting your logical deduction at the end of page 4:

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

Although the deduction here is logically sound, it provides no evidence or proof for the existence of God - God's existence is one of your assumptions, from which you deduce the final statement.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 9:15:59 AM EST (GMT-5)
"That's more like faith, then, because it's wholly subjective in nature."

I believe proof is subjective. Its any evidence that compels a mind to believe something is true. Whats its proving may or may not be *really* true, but as long as one's mind is compelled to believe in what the evidence suggests, then that can still be considered proof.

For example: Say a person sees a baby being born and in their mind, they find it hard to understand how such a miraculous event could come about from 2 simple humans. The reasoning around that thought in that persons mind is enough evidence to prove *to that person* that God exists.

Christians always claim they have their own proof of God. The evidence was interpreted solely by them and was enough to compel them to believe in God. Thats their proof.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 9:19:55 AM EST (GMT-5)
Nozzer, I know its not easy to catch up from all the other posts, but to explain myself, I did, to start with, work off of the assumption that God exists, merely to prove my point with that argument. Heres the post where I made that assumption:

"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 - 9:21:59 AM EST (GMT-5)
That's a rather strange notion of proof - a bit like senorita's. It's closer to what I call "motivation", or perhaps (subjective) "justification".
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 9:22:57 AM EST (GMT-5)
I wasnt trying to prove God existed with that argument, I was only using it to show that how 'proof' of God would work with someone who believes in God.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 9:25:23 AM EST (GMT-5)
kyry - justification may be a better word for what Im trying to explain. I understand that the notion of proof that you may be speaking of is evidence of a pure truth, its just thats not the one I was getting at.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Wednesday 10/29/03 - 9:30:21 AM EST (GMT-5)
As long as we understand each other

Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 Next (showing 101-125 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 Do you still wear a face mask in public?

2 Will you play a game of spades with me, please?

3 Do you think that Robin Williams is still funny?

4 Should Australia make its outback a nuclear waste dumping ground for the world?

5 Do you think Earth be habitable for humans in the year 2200?

6 Which brand of jeans do you prefer: Levi`s or Wranglers?

7 Do you believe that Howard Dean offered to make Wesley Clark his running mate?

8 When you hear someone say `Jesus H. Christ`, do you know what the H. stands for?

9 Are you afraid of the dark?

10 does anyone use this site anymore?

More Questions
 
Edit