It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logical doesn't mean it makes sense to you....

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Great post Servant.

I am sure the dog is happy that pine trees do exist or many would be urinating on somoeone false premise leg.




posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

oh goody - now that we have WLCs steaming turd in the open - lets discuss that

specifically - why one and 2 are false

one is the worst offender

and 2 is a subjective view [ ironic really ]



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




I believe that "truly conscious agents" can exist in terms of being self aware, but I don't view it as a deterministic process, the laws of QM indicate nothing is truly deterministic, but that doesn't mean we're more than a collection of particles.


These vague references to QM to defend your position isn't very convincing to me. Maybe you can elaborate on how consciousness as an emergent property of matter doesn't amount to determinism ? The probability wave of an electron, which is derived from Schrodinger's equation, is the shape of the electrons wave. Max born came up with the probability wave as a possible interpretation of that shape. That is take the square of what is derived from Schrodinger's equation and you will get the probability of finding that electron in a particular location at a particular instant. I am not sure how this information gets you to agency from matter though. It could also be the case that Born was completely wrong in his interpretation of the electron wave.




Sorry, once again I was interpreting amoral as immoral. Although I would argue that something as simple as drinking a glass of water could be immoral. What if it was the last reserves of water and that person has already had many glasses of water that day?


Then I would say lets make the distinction between me drinking a bottle of water I bought out of my fridge, and drinking the last reserves of water. The point here is you can conceive of the two classifactory devices, and if your position on morality was correct that would be impossible.




Even something typically seen as a good thing, such as child birth, could be an arguably immoral act. What if abortion was made illegal world wide, then using a time machine you saw our planet die from the ravages of overpopulation a few hundred years later, would you come back and argue mothers should have a choice to kill their unborn babies if it could save our species?


So your position is if a child will inconvenience us we ought to murder it?




I predicted this response, but we both know it was an analogy for your external objective morality which is hard coded into the fabric of reality.


Well the analogy is a bad one, let me explain why. As I said earlier about the length of the meter bar isn’t some sort of abstract thing called “the length” that exists, but it is a property of the meter bar. If the Bible were the external source of morality, then some property of the Bible would have to be the very paradigm of goodness. Yet morality deals with how personal agents interact with one another. A book can never have a property of that sort. This part of the reason most philosopher's don't disagree with premise 1 of Craig's argument even when he replaces external standard with God, that is because for a standard of morality to exist you would need a morally perfect agent. This is kind of a hard point to verbalize. I hope I did it some justice.




There's very little difference, people look to the bible as an external source of ethics to tell them what is right and wrong, which is clearly not a very good way to develop ones morality unless you want to be a bigot.


First, most people make a distinction between ethics and morality. You seem to be using them interchangeably. Morality is understanding the distinction between right and wrong and living according to that understanding, and ethics is the philosophy of how that morality guides individual and group behavior. Second, I think if you actually understood Christianity as it is held by an educated adult and not a child you would probably come out with a different idea. To make a long discussion short:




“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]” declares the Lord. 33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”


Christians teach Christ death gives you forgiveness of sin and salvation. We teach now the the knowledge of right and wrong is not known from scripture but from the law God implanted in our minds the greatest of which is to love your God and your neighbor as yourself.




Yet many people place all their faith in the bible and believe it without question, proving my last point that people have a hard time deciding their ethical stand points and disagree a lot on what is wrong or right, especially when it comes to gray areas, we tend to seek out answers from external sources.


Do be honest I don't find morality to be very grey. Most people think they present hard moral scenarios, but I often find they are under analyzed.




There's no reason you could not come to that conclusion if your brain was a complex information processing machine capable of integrating new information. The same thing would be true of a complex A.I., just because it's nothing more than electrical signals going through a circuit doesn't mean it must have no capacity to learn or build an understanding and opinion of the world around it.


Using A.I. is a very bad example. No computer program can do anything outside the bounds of its limited source code, and every action of the machine could be traced back to some pattern of electrical signals in the machine. The machine would be no more conscious than the fleshy bag of particles we are calling humans.




The intrinsic value of a $100 note would be the value of the paper and ink, it's based on the actual physical composition of the thing, not the nature.


Paper and ink don't have intrinsic value either. I meant nature not physical composition. I mean just do a quick google search of intrinsic value. You'll see it has to do with nature not composition.




What I'm saying is, it's impossible to place any form of objective value onto any collection of particles, it's an entirely subjective exercise.


I agree, but I don't think human beings are just a collection of particles. If that is all they were then you would be right they would lack intrinsic value and there was nothing wrong with the Armenian genocide or the Holocaust. I simply don't think that is the truth.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




No, I'm saying that attempting to assign any form of "value" to a human life is a completely futile exerciseThinking of humans in terms of instrumental value is even worse than thinking in terms of intrinsic value because the life of a person is valued based on how much they can be used by others, which leads to all sorts of moral contradictions.


If assigning value to human life is futile why are you saying it is "worse" to think of them as instrumental value. You mean you don't prefer to think of humans that way. You should live consistently with your world view. If you have kids be sure to teach them that you prefer they not lie but that it is really up to them


What are these moral contradictions you speak of? There are no contradictions on your view. Let me ask you this again. is there anything wrong with this syllogism:

1) If eating animals is wrong then eating panda bears is wrong.
2) Eating animals is wrong.
3) Eating panda bears is not wrong.




So the life of the person has a value proportional to how much their family comes to visit? Ok let me put this another way, what if the person was severely disabled, lived by themselves, and had a carer which despised their job... so the person is just sucking money from the welfare system and taking much more than they give, even if you factor in the happiness their existence gives to that one family memory who visits once a year. In other words, the personal clearly has a negative instrumental value, then according to your logic, would it then be ok to kill that person because their life has no positive value? This is where talking in terms of intrinsic and instrumental value will get you...


I don't think of humans this way, but if your position is correct instrumental value is all humans have...so I could kill someone solely on the basis that it brings me pleasure, i.e. there death had instrumental value to me the killer. I agree its atrocious to think of humans that way and we have a moral obligation not to think of humans that way.




No, the problem is you're making a general statement which doesn't always apply. Maybe there's a sentient species out there which develop into adults in just 5 years, would you try telling them they're too young for sex even though their bodies are completely mature and it's been their way of life for hundreds of years?


Changing the argument with slight variation every time I refute your examples is getting a little old. This is a straw man. The scenario is not even the same as humans don't mature by 5 and i think it is kind of obvious I was talking about human relations.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Why don't we discuss the argument I put forth instead of you steering me into defending premises I didn't create this thread to defend:




1. If an external standard of morality does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist(Premiss)
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist (Premiss)
3. It is not the case, that objective moral values and duties do not exist (Double negation, 2)
4. Therefore, it is not the case that an external standard of morality does not exist (Modus tollens, 1, 3)
5. Therefore, an external standard of morality exist(Double negation, 4)


Hopefully if we take this argument our only disagreement will be on premise 2. If we come to an agreement on that, then we will come to an agreement on the existence of an external standard and we can start to discuss what that might be after. Sound fair?



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

if you are putting forth the " argument " - then its incumbent on you to support you premise [ s ]



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Which premise do you think is false?



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




The probability wave of an electron, which is derived from Schrodinger's equation, is the shape of the electrons wave. Max born came up with the probability wave as a possible interpretation of that shape. That is take the square of what is derived from Schrodinger's equation and you will get the probability of finding that electron in a particular location at a particular instant.


This should read :

The wave function of an electron, which is derived from Schrodinger's equation, is a mathematical description of the shape of the electrons wave. Max born came up with the probability wave as a possible interpretation of that shape. That is take the square of what is derived from Schrodinger's equation and you will get the probability of finding that electron in a particular location at a particular instant.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Haha. My dogs sure are glad they exist. Glad you liked the post



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, if it does, just take it with a grain of salt cause I wasn't sure how best (1 Peter 3:15) to phrase the thought in the first sentence especially, or the 2nd paragraph below:

Don't try so hard to sound clever by overcomplicating the obvious with fancy terminology such as "non sequitur". Just say, the conclusion doesn't follow the statement or argument if your intention is to explain things to people who you describe as making "themselves out to be champions of logic, and then call things that simply don't make sense to them illogical"..."but most of them will have no idea how to form an argument and follow thru the argument using the 9 laws of logical inference. If you don't know what these are you cannot even properly evaluate a logical argument, much less deem it invalid or not sound." (if that is how you feel about these people that you're trying to educate or reach I suggest keeping it simple and not using vague references to things you think people don't understand. Spock would say: "Now that would not be logical." If he uses emphasis, I only saw the movies and can't remember)

I think most people can get pretty far on common sense alone though without having to 'show off' ("demonstrate" has perhaps a better ring to it, not making any implications here) their knowledge of terms like "non sequitur" or "premise" or "the 9 laws of logical inference", or completely understanding these terms. The real interfering factor with people using logic properly is not ignorance regarding these terms or these human invented terminologies and supposed laws (Greek Pagan philosophers are involved in the terminology and these supposed rules or laws, the same usual suspects involved with promoting Triune Gods and Pantheism+evolutionary philosophies, Plato, Aristotle, etc.; sufficient reason to be suspicious of them even when they make perfect sense, they might still be a bit convoluting the concept of using your common sense or logic properly in order to make the ones who came up with these terminologies and rules/laws look more sophisticated and worthy of listening to, studying, taking seriously regarding everything they're arguing for, including Pantheism, Deism, Trinitarianism, Binitariamism, Unitarianism, evolutionary philosophies, Pagan religious philosophy, human philosophy like WLC studied). It's emotions and ignorance of how easy it is to manipulate human behaviour and thinking patterns and draw their attention towards philosophies that will actually harm their minds that's the biggest interfering factor here. And the love for the type of human philosophy studied by WLC (or included in that study, no doubt they covered Bishop Berkeley's immaterialism without mentioning anything or much about tar-water) and described below:

Colossians 2:8
8 Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

See my thread One myth leads to another, Guard against being deceived and my commentary in the threads about the topics "What is truth?" and "What is knowledge?" for details why I'm quoting the text above as a reminder that there is a type of philosophy (the one that WLC studied for) that is harmful to the mind. See my signature as well regarding "poison".
Don't feel like editing the layout below, being lazy...

Philosophy

Definition: The word philosophy is derived from Greek roots that mean “love of wisdom.” As used here, philosophy is not built on acceptance of belief in God, but it tries to give people a unified view of the universe and endeavors to make them critical thinkers. It employs chiefly speculative means rather than observation in a search for truth.

How can any of us acquire true knowledge and wisdom?

Prov. 1:7; Ps. 111:10: “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of knowledge . . . [and] of wisdom.” (If the universe were not the product of an intelligent Creator but only of some blind, irrational force, then no unified view of the universe would be possible, would it? Nothing that would qualify as wisdom could result from a study of something that was itself irrational, could it? Those who attempt to understand the universe or life itself, while endeavoring to leave God and his purpose out of account, meet with constant frustration. They misinterpret what they learn and misuse facts that they glean. Leaving out of account belief in God destroys the key to accurate knowledge and makes impossible any truly consistent framework of thought.)

Prov. 2:4-7: “If you keep seeking for it as for silver, and as for hid treasures you keep searching for it, in that case you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the very knowledge of God. For Jehovah himself gives wisdom; out of his mouth there are knowledge and discernment. And for the upright ones he will treasure up practical wisdom.” (Jehovah provides needed help through his written Word and his visible organization. An earnest desire and personal effort, including the use of one’s thinking ability in a constructive manner, are also necessary.)

Is it realistic to expect to find absolute truth from this Source?

2 Tim. 3:16; John 17:17: “All Scripture is inspired of God.” “[Jesus said to his heavenly Father:] Your word is truth.” (Is it not reasonable that the Creator of the universe would have full understanding of it? In the Bible he has not told us everything about the universe, but what he has had recorded there is not speculation; it is truth. He has also stated in the Bible what his purpose is for the earth and for mankind and how he will accomplish it. His almighty power, superlative wisdom, flawless justice, and great love guarantee that this purpose will be fully accomplished, and in the best possible manner. His qualities thus assure us that his statement of purpose is completely dependable; it is truth.)

What is the origin of human philosophies?

They come from people who have limitations: The Bible informs us: “It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jer. 10:23) History testifies that trying to ignore that limitation has not produced good results. On one occasion, “Jehovah proceeded to answer Job out of the windstorm and say: ‘Who is this that is obscuring counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man, and let me question you, and you inform me. Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you do know understanding.’” (Job 38:1-4) (Humans by nature have limitations. Additionally, their experience in life is relatively brief and is usually confined to one culture or one environment. The knowledge they possess is thus restricted, and everything is interconnected to such an extent that they constantly find aspects that they had not adequately considered. Any philosophy that they originate will reflect these limitations.)

They are developed by humans who are imperfect: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23) “There exists a way that is upright before a man, but the ways of death are the end of it afterward.” (Prov. 14:12) (Because of such imperfection, human philosophies often reflect a basic selfishness that leads perhaps to momentary pleasure but also to frustration and much unhappiness.)

...
edit on 18-2-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   

They are influenced by demonic spirits: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) “The one called Devil and Satan . . . is misleading the entire inhabited earth.” (Rev. 12:9) “You at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now operates in the sons of disobedience.” (Eph. 2:2) (Philosophies that encourage people to disobey God’s wholesome and upright requirements reflect such an influence. No wonder that, as history testifies, human philosophies and schemes have often brought grief to large segments of humankind.)

Why is it an evidence of clear thinking to study the teachings of Jesus Christ instead of human philosophy?

Col. 1:15-17: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth . . . All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist.” (His intimate relationship with God enables him to help us to learn the truth about God. Furthermore, as the one through whom all other things were made, Jesus has a full knowledge of the entire created universe. No human philosopher can offer any of this.)

Col. 1:19, 20: “God saw good for all fullness to dwell in him [Jesus Christ], and through him to reconcile again to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake.” (Thus Jesus Christ is the one through whom God has purposed to bring all creation back into harmony with himself. To Jesus, God has also entrusted rulership over all the earth, as shown at Daniel 7:13, 14. So our life prospects for the future depend on getting to know him and responding favorably to his instruction.)

Col. 2:8: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.” (What a sad mistake it would be to choose such deceptive human philosophy in preference to acquiring true wisdom as a disciple of Jesus Christ, the second-greatest person in the universe, next to God himself!)

How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy?

1 Cor. 1:19-25: “It is written: ‘I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.’ Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness [as it appears to the world] of what is preached to save those believing. . . . Because a foolish thing of God [as the world views it] is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God [as the world may see it] is stronger than men.” (Such a viewpoint on God’s part is certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable. He has provided in the Bible, the most widely circulated book in the world, a clear statement of his purpose. He has sent his witnesses to discuss it with all who will listen. How foolish for any creature to think that he has wisdom greater than that of God!)

Source: Philosophy: Reasoning

Also see:
Philosophy: Insight, Volume 2

As I said a long time ago on the Origins and Creationism subforum:

'Plato-fans to the left of me,
Plato-fans to the right of me,
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with philosophy and the depth of human imagination,
Boldly I rode and well,
Into the jaws of Pagan Mythology,
Into the mouth of La La Land
I rode.'

I also used: "Berkeley-fans" in the 2nd line (that is with the understanding that those promoting the philosophy of immaterialism or some derived philosophy like neoholographic was promoting in that forum at the time and are promoted throughout the movie "the Matrix", often do not realize they are fans or where there ideas/philosophies about reality originally came from)

Aristotle would work to, or Justin, or Athanasius. All Pagan philosophers the latter 2 claiming to be Christians and others have called them Church Fathers, martyrs or honest scholars and theologians. Especially regarding Athanasius they couldn't be further from the truth regarding the concept of "honesty".

The Church Fathers—Advocates of Bible Truth?

Historical Background

In the middle of the second century C.E., professed Christians were defending their faith against Roman persecutors and heretics alike. However, this was an era of too many theological voices. Religious debates regarding the “divinity” of Jesus and the nature and workings of the holy spirit caused more than just intellectual rifts. Bitter disagreements and irreparable divisions over “Christian” doctrine spilled over into the political and cultural spheres, at times causing riots, rebellion, civil strife, even war. Writes historian Paul Johnson: “[Apostate] Christianity began in confusion, controversy and schism and so it continued. . . . The central and eastern Mediterranean in the first and second centuries AD swarmed with an infinite multitude of religious ideas, struggling to propagate themselves. . . . From the start, then, there were numerous varieties of Christianity which had little in common.”

During that era, writers and thinkers who felt that it was imperative to interpret “Christian” teachings using philosophical terms began to flourish. To satisfy educated pagans who were new converts to “Christianity,” such religious writers relied heavily on earlier Greek and Jewish literature. Beginning with Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 C.E.), who wrote in Greek, professed Christians became increasingly sophisticated in their assimilation of the philosophical heritage of the Greek culture.

This trend came to fruition in the writings of Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.), a Greek author from Alexandria. Origen’s treatise On First Principles was the first systematic effort to explain the main doctrines of “Christian” theology in terms of Greek philosophy. The Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), with its attempt to explain and establish the “divinity” of Christ, was the milestone that gave new impetus to interpretation of “Christian” dogma. That council marked the beginning of an era during which general church councils sought to define dogma ever more precisely.

Writers and Orators

Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote at the time of the first Council of Nicaea, associated himself with Emperor Constantine. For slightly more than 100 years after Nicaea, theologians, most of them writing in Greek, worked out in a long and bitter debate what was to be the distinguishing doctrine of Christendom, the Trinity. Chief among them were Athanasius, the assertive bishop of Alexandria, and three church leaders from Cappadocia, Asia Minor—Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus.
...

see next comment
edit on 18-2-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 04:37 AM
link   

...
Writers and preachers during that age achieved high standards of eloquence. Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom (meaning “Golden-Mouthed”) in Greek as well as Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo in Latin were consummate orators, masters of the most respected and popular art form of their time. The most influential writer of that period was Augustine. His theological treatises have pervasively shaped the “Christian” thinking of today. Jerome, the period’s most distinguished man of letters, was chiefly responsible for the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible from the original languages.

However, important questions are: Did those Church Fathers adhere closely to the Bible? In their teaching, did they hold fast to the inspired Scriptures? Are their writings a safe guide to an accurate knowledge of God?

Teachings of God or Teachings of Men?

Recently, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Methodius of Pisidia wrote the book The Hellenic Pedestal of Christianity in order to show that Greek culture and philosophy provided the infrastructure of modern “Christian” thought. In that book, he unhesitantly admits: “Almost all the prominent Church Fathers considered the Greek elements most useful, and they borrowed them from the Greek classical antiquity, using them as a means to understand and correctly express the Christian truths.”

Take, for example, the idea that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit make up the Trinity. Many Church Fathers after the Council of Nicaea became staunch Trinitarians. Their writings and expositions were crucial to making the Trinity a landmark doctrine of Christendom. However, is the Trinity found in the Bible? No. So where did the Church Fathers get it? A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity affirms: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”*—John 3:16; 14:28.

Or consider the teaching of the immortality of the soul, a belief that some part of man lives on after the body dies. Again, the Church Fathers were instrumental in introducing this notion to a religion that had no teaching about a soul surviving death. The Bible clearly shows that the soul can die: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) What was the basis for the Church Fathers’ belief in an immortal soul? “The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen in the East and St. Augustine in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . [Augustine’s doctrine] . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism,” says the New Catholic Encyclopedia. And the magazine Presbyterian Life says: “Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”*

The Solid Basis of Christian Truth

After even this brief examination of the historical backdrop of the Church Fathers, as well as the origins of their teachings, it is appropriate to ask, Should a sincere Christian base his or her beliefs on the teachings of the Church Fathers? Let the Bible answer.

For one thing, Jesus Christ himself ruled out the use of the religious title “Father” when he said: “Do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.” (Matthew 23:9) The use of the term “Father” to designate any religious figure is unchristian and unscriptural. The written Word of God was completed about 98 C.E. with the writings of the apostle John. Thus, true Christians do not need to look to any human as the source of inspired revelation. They are careful not to ‘make the word of God invalid’ because of human tradition. Letting human tradition take the place of God’s Word is spiritually lethal. Jesus warned: “If . . . a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”—Matthew 15:6, 14.

Does a Christian need any revelation besides the word of God as contained in the Bible? No. The book of Revelation cautions against adding anything to the inspired record: “If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll.”—Revelation 22:18.

Christian truth is embodied in the written Word of God, the Bible. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 John 1-4) The correct understanding of it does not hinge on secular philosophy. Regarding men who tried to use human wisdom to explain divine revelation, it is fitting to repeat the apostle Paul’s questions: “Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish?”—1 Corinthians 1:20.

Moreover, the true Christian congregation is “a pillar and support of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15) Its overseers safeguard the purity of their teaching within the congregation, preventing any doctrinal pollutant from creeping in. (2 Timothy 2:15-18, 25) They keep out of the congregation ‘false prophets, false teachers, and destructive sects.’ (2 Peter 2:1) After the death of the apostles, the Church Fathers allowed “misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons” to take root in the Christian congregation.—1 Timothy 4:1.

The consequences of this apostasy are evident in Christendom today. Its beliefs and practices are a far cry from Bible truth.

*: For a detailed discussion of the Bible’s teaching on the soul, see pages 98-104 and 375-80 of Reasoning From the Scriptures

CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS

“The Orthodox Church . . . has a particular reverence for the writers of the fourth century, and especially for those whom it terms ‘the three Great Hierarchs,’ Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and John Chrysostom,” states the writer Kallistos, who is a monk. Did these Church Fathers base their teachings on the inspired Scriptures? Regarding Basil the Great, the book The Fathers of the Greek Church states: “His writings show that he retained a lifelong intimacy with Plato, Homer, and the historians and rhetors, and they certainly influenced his style. . . . Basil remained a ‘Greek.’” The same was true of Gregory of Nazianzus. “In his view the victory and the superiority of the Church would best be shown in its complete adoption of the traditions of classical culture.”

Regarding all three of them, Professor Panagiotis K. Christou writes: “While they occasionally caution against ‘philosophy and empty deception’ [Colossians 2:8]—in order to be in harmony with the commandment of the New Testament—they, at the same time, eagerly study philosophy and the relevant disciplines and even recommend the study of them to others.” Obviously, such church teachers thought that the Bible was not enough to support their ideas. Could their seeking other pillars of authority mean that their teachings were foreign to the Bible? The apostle Paul warned Hebrew Christians: “Do not be carried away with various and strange teachings.”—Hebrews 13:9.

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA—A CONTROVERSIAL CHURCH FATHER

One of the most controversial figures among Church Fathers is Cyril of Alexandria (c. 375-444 C.E.). Church historian Hans von Campenhausen describes him as “dogmatic, violent, and cunning, permeated by the greatness of his calling and the



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 04:40 AM
link   

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA—A CONTROVERSIAL CHURCH FATHER

One of the most controversial figures among Church Fathers is Cyril of Alexandria (c. 375-444 C.E.). Church historian Hans von Campenhausen describes him as “dogmatic, violent, and cunning, permeated by the greatness of his calling and the dignity of his office,” and adds that “he never considered anything as right unless it was useful to him in the furtherance of his power and authority . . . The brutality and unscrupulousness of his methods never depressed him.” While he was bishop of Alexandria, Cyril used bribery, libel, and slander in order to depose the bishop of Constantinople. He is considered responsible for the brutal murder in 415 C.E. of a renowned philosopher named Hypatia. Regarding Cyril’s theological writings, Campenhausen says: “He initiated the practice of deciding questions of belief not solely on the basis of the Bible but with the aid of appropriate quotations and collections of quotations from acknowledged authorities.”

edit 1st comment: "doesn't follow" = "doesn't logically follow" as in "doesn't follow logically, it's not a logical (or reasonable) conclusion based on that statement or argument", I was out of space to edit that in.
edit on 18-2-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic




Don't try so hard to sound clever by overcomplicating the obvious with fancy terminology such as "non sequitur". Just say, the conclusion doesn't follow the statement or argument if your intention is to explain things to people who you describe as making "themselves out to be champions of logic, and then call things that simply don't make sense to them illogical"..."but most of them will have no idea how to form an argument and follow thru the argument using the 9 laws of logical inference. If you don't know what these are you cannot even properly evaluate a logical argument, much less deem it invalid or not sound." (if that is how you feel about these people that you're trying to educate or reach I suggest keeping it simple and not using vague references to things you think people don't understand.


This may be hard for you to believe but that is just how my thoughts are registered. I am not trying to confuse people with fancy terminology.



I think most people can get pretty far on common sense alone though without having to 'show off' ("demonstrate" has perhaps a better ring to it, not making any implications here) their knowledge of terms like "non sequitur" or "premise" or "the 9 laws of logical inference", or completely understanding these terms.


Common sense isn't real sense, if we define sense as being sound judgment. Relying on experience alone doesn't usually offer enough information to draw reliable conclusions. Common sense is almost a contradiction in terms. Real sense can rarely be derived from experience alone. I use those terms because they are good descriptions of what I mean. It takes 2 seconds to google something you don't know.



Colossians 2:8 8 Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;


The apostle does not mean to condemn all arts and sciences, as useless and hurtful. The Scriptures themselves abound with examples of natural philosophy in its various branches, ethics, logic, rhetoric when kept within due bounds, ect. But he means that philosophy, or science, which is falsely so called, the false notions of philosophers; such as the eternity of matter, and of this world, the mortality of souls, the worshiping of demons and angels. You even referenced 1 Peter 3:15 which tells you and I to have a "reasoned" defense of the hope that is within us. I find WLC to be an extremely profound thinker in our day, and he loves the Lord. Not sure why you think his approach to showing God exists is wrong, other than the fact that Colossians 2:8 warns again certain philosophies and WLC is a philosopher. I assume you want people to take a presuppositional approach to apologetics, but even that relies upon natural philosophy. In fact presuppositional apologetics has its very basis around what philosopher's call the problem of induction.

You and I also seem to view Biblical inspiration very different. God did not autowrite the Bible thru the apostles, but rather chose certain men who in their own writing styles get God's message to people.


You seem to want to think that something like the three law of classical logic can be thrown out, and you and I still have a conversation that is productive. I promise you if we throw those laws out of our mind we will be in some deep #aki. Throw out the law of noncontradiction and God can be both God and the devil. To be honest I am not going to read a wall of text you quoted from some source. Make your points a bit more succinct.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


These vague references to QM to defend your position isn't very convincing to me. Maybe you can elaborate on how consciousness as an emergent property of matter doesn't amount to determinism ?

All I'm saying is, if true randomness is a property of QM then nothing is completely predictable. That's not to say we really have some type of free will just because our future isn't set in stone. I've previously written a thread related to this subject which does a good job of explaining my position: Existential Musings - Part 1: Determinism & Free Will.


Then I would say lets make the distinction between me drinking a bottle of water I bought out of my fridge, and drinking the last reserves of water. The point here is you can conceive of the two classifactory devices, and if your position on morality was correct that would be impossible.

It would absolutely not be impossible, my brain has spent many years developing a concept of morality based on my life experiences. I simply understand that taking more than what others get is not nice because I wouldn't want some one to do that to me and I don't want others to view me as a selfish person, it comes down to ego and empathy.


So your position is if a child will inconvenience us we ought to murder it?

I asked you the question, and that wasn't the question I asked, I asked if you would argue for the murder of unborn babies if you knew it could save the entire species from extinction, there is a stark difference between that and an "inconvenience". What I'm really trying to get at here, is the question of whether it's ok to do something you view as objectionably immoral if it's in concern for the greater good or something much worse will happen if you don't. If you think every situation in life has a solution which doesn't force you to make an ugly choice then you are living in a fantasy world.


If the Bible were the external source of morality, then some property of the Bible would have to be the very paradigm of goodness.

Some property? Oh let me think... I'm pretty sure the fact people think it's the word of god qualifies it to have the same capacity as the actual god you talk of. Unless you're admitting the bible is a completely useless fabrication most likely written by men then your argument makes no sense. In fact I see you quote the bible to me in the next freaking paragraph of your response...


Christians teach Christ death gives you forgiveness of sin and salvation. We teach now the the knowledge of right and wrong is not known from scripture but from the law God implanted in our minds the greatest of which is to love your God and your neighbor as yourself.

Don't generalize, we both know that's just your camp, plenty of Christians claim the bible to be a source of moral guidance, the bible makes many crystal clear claims about what we should and should not do in this life, some of which are completely absurd and don't align with my sense of morality at all.


No computer program can do anything outside the bounds of its limited source code, and every action of the machine could be traced back to some pattern of electrical signals in the machine.

This comes back the idea of randomness being necessary for consciousness because otherwise we're just a series of predictable operations. That's why I believe quantum computers will be necessary to build truly self-aware machines. However I will note that even if our brain is completely deterministic just like a classical computer, it's still possible for deterministic systems to do very complex things, so complex they become completely chaotic. We have massive amounts of data flowing into our brain from the outside world every second. An analogy would be an A.I. connected to the internet with the ability to absorb new information. At first it's behavior would be quite predictable, but it would quickly become very hard to predict what the A.I. is going to look for and what results it will get back because the internet is extremely rich with data and is constantly changing. We could start off two A.I.'s using the exact same neural network and they would soon diverge from each other and start behaving differently.


Paper and ink don't have intrinsic value either. I mean just do a quick google search of intrinsic value. You'll see it has to do with nature not composition.

Really this comes down to philosophical crap but a common definition is the "underlying perception of its true value". When a person speaks about the value of an old coin they may say it's made of a cheap metal so it has a low intrinsic value (underlying value in terms of physical composition), but it has a high historical value. People say that paper money has no intrinsic value because there's nothing real like gold backing it, there's nothing physical backing it. However even paper has some intrinsic value which is why they don't usually give it out free. Despite the fact it's very abundant it still has some small intrinsic value.


I agree, but I don't think human beings are just a collection of particles. If that is all they were then you would be right they would lack intrinsic value and there was nothing wrong with the Armenian genocide or the Holocaust.

I just don't understand this need for things to have some sort of transcendental meaning beyond the meaning we ascribe to it as conscious beings. Is the fact most people think it was a tragedy not enough? If the universe thought it was so wrong then it would have never happened. News flash, the universe doesn't have an opinion, an entire planet full of living creatures probably went extinct due to their star going super nova in the time I took to write this response.


I don't think of humans this way, but if your position is correct instrumental value is all humans have...so I could kill someone solely on the basis that it brings me pleasure, i.e. there death had instrumental value to me the killer. I agree its atrocious to think of humans that way and we have a moral obligation not to think of humans that way.

How is it my position, you're the one who wanted to assign some sort of objective value onto humans and started down these slippery slopes. I completely disagree that humans have any type of objective value as I've already stated several times, at the end of the day we're just a collection of particles. That doesn't mean I cannot deeply care for some of those collections of particles.


Changing the argument with slight variation every time I refute your examples is getting a little old.

Yes it is getting old because it's really not the important point of the debate, the point is just because most people agree something isn't moral doesn't mean there must be some transcendent form of morality which agrees with us, nor do we need such an external form of morality in order to care about morality. I don't believe in god or any form of objective morality, and I'm quite certain I view many things as moral where you would see them as immoral. But that doesn't mean I have to think all morality is pointless and I don't have to obey the law, which is what your line of logic seems to be hinged on.
edit on 21/2/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




All I'm saying is, if true randomness is a property of QM then nothing is completely predictable. That's not to say we really have some type of free will just because our future isn't set in stone. I've previously written a thread related to this subject which does a good job of explaining my position: Existential Musings - Part 1: Determinism & Free Will.


I read your thread but I see no justification for your leap from randomness to consciousness and free will. Things can be determined by truly random events. Determinism is the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Saying randomness exist does nothing to prove that human action isn't determined by external causes rather than will.




It would absolutely not be impossible, my brain has spent many years developing a concept of morality based on my life experiences. I simply understand that taking more than what others get is not nice because I wouldn't want some one to do that to me and I don't want others to view me as a selfish person, it comes down to ego and empathy.


If its just your brain there is no binding truth value to your indicative moral statements, and there is no true moral obligation. Its all just a game you play in your head. My point seems to be going over your head. Why do you think I am saying it would be impossible to make a distinction between the two categories? If you think you can make the distinction explain how it is logically possible because I see no way to conceive of moral values in a world where they don't exist. Just like i see no way for a creature that has never seen light to know the concepts of darkness and light. I'll ask you this for the third time is there anything wrong with the form of this syllogism:




1) If eating animals is wrong then eating panda bears is wrong. 2) Eating animals is wrong. 3) Eating panda bears is not wron





Some property? Oh let me think... I'm pretty sure the fact people think it's the word of god qualifies it to have the same capacity as the actual god you talk of.


No it doesn't. You don't understand what proponents of the moral argument believe. I think what you are getting at is the Bible holds the commands of a morally perfect being, so one could say it is a good place to look for moral wisdom, but you can't say that a book is the paradigm of goodness. Its kind of like saying the number 2 has a length. It just doesn't make sense, and if Christians do make that claim they are simply being illogical.




Don't generalize, we both know that's just your camp, plenty of Christians claim the bible to be a source of moral guidance, the bible makes many crystal clear claims about what we should and should not do in this life, some of which are completely absurd and don't align with my sense of morality at all.


I don't really care what other people claim, because they haven't actually thought thru what they are saying. Not sure what you mean by my camp. I talk to a vast majority of Christians who hold different theological positions from me. I am not sure what them being incorrect has to do with my position.




This comes back the idea of randomness being necessary for consciousness because otherwise we're just a series of predictable operations.


Except randomness doesn't get you to consciousness. I am not even sure it is a necessary precondition of consciousness. Just because the events are unpredictable doesn't mean they aren't determined, it just means you cannot accurately calculate the outcome...




However I will note that even if our brain is completely deterministic just like a classical computer, it's still possible for deterministic systems to do very complex things, so complex they become completely chaotic.


If you don't have free will then you don't believe in God because that is the way you fizz. Nothing more nothing less. Same goes for your A.I.




Really this comes down to philosophical crap but a common definition is the "underlying perception of its true value".


This is not a definition of intrinsic value I have ever seen used in philosophy though it is used in involving stock trade and what not. I think you should look up the philosophical definition of intrinsic value seeing as how we aren't talking about stocks and companies.




When a person speaks about the value of an old coin they may say it's made of a cheap metal so it has a low intrinsic value (underlying value in terms of physical composition), but it has a high historical value. People say that paper money has no intrinsic value because there's nothing real like gold backing it, there's nothing physical backing it. However even paper has some intrinsic value which is why they don't usually give it out free. Despite the fact it's very abundant it still has some small intrinsic value.



I don't know why you keep using intrinsic value to talk about physical composition when I clearly said that was not how I am using the term:




The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic. Many philosophers take intrinsic value to be crucial to a variety of moral judgments.


plato.stanford.edu...


Paper and ink has no value in itself. Its only value is that which human agents ascribe to it. Same goes for coins, jewels, rocks, monuments ect...




I just don't understand this need for things to have some sort of transcendental meaning beyond the meaning we ascribe to it as conscious beings. Is the fact most people think it was a tragedy not enough?


I am not concerned with the majorities opinion. I am concerned with the truth. Your position is the same as stating all indicative moral propositions are false. That is to say both, "torturing babies for fun is evil" and "torturing babies for fun is good" are both false statements. If we assume the truth of your position we are led to an absurd realm. We exist in a realm where we cannot make sense of obvious contradictions like the one I just gave your or the eating panda one up above and as such via reductio ad absurdum we can know that morals aren't subjective.

No one is arguing for transcendental meaning. I am simply arguing that God is the foundation of moral values, and the explanation of our ability to make distinctions between moral and amoral actions, and our ability to recognize moral contradictions. Your subjective opinion doesn't give you a justification for a belief in moral obligations, yet you seem to think we have moral obligations exist even if objective moral values don't exist which doesn't follow.

edit on 23-2-2017 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder



If the universe thought it was so wrong then it would have never happened. News flash, the universe doesn't have an opinion, an entire planet full of living creatures probably went extinct due to their star going super nova in the time I took to write this response.


No one is arguing for the universe having an opinion. I mean really at what point have you seen me claim such a thing...Note you just made the same argument about the universe that I made about the Bible....the Bible doesn't have thoughts or opinions so its not the paradigm of goodness though it could contain the commands of a perfectly good being which may have been what you were getting at but even in that scenario it is still not the paradigm of goodness it just contains good commands.




How is it my position, you're the one who wanted to assign some sort of objective value onto humans and started down these slippery slopes. I completely disagree that humans have any type of objective value as I've already stated several times, at the end of the day we're just a collection of particles. That doesn't mean I cannot deeply care for some of those collections of particles.


I think you are getting lost in terms man. Intrinsic value is a necessary precondition for moral worth. Collections of particles are not intrinsically valuable in the philosophical sense of the word not the economic sense as you used above. My position says that humans are image bearers of God and that they in themselves are morally valuable by nature. On your view instrumental value is all we can justify. Instrumental value isn't objective. It is the usefulness you find in a particular arrangement of matter. Its based on your opinion(i,e, subjective). You can choose to care for them, but that doesn't mean another person should value them or you.




Yes it is getting old because it's really not the important point of the debate, the point is just because most people agree something isn't moral doesn't mean there must be some transcendent form of morality which agrees with us, nor do we need such an external form of morality in order to care about morality. I don't believe in god or any form of objective morality, and I'm quite certain I view many things as moral where you would see them as immoral. But that doesn't mean I have to think all morality is pointless and I don't have to obey the law, which is what your line of logic seems to be hinged on.


You an care about morality all you want, but its unjustified and imo absurd. As I said it reduces you to a state in which you should not be able to recognize distinctions between moral and amoral actions, nor should you be able to recognize moral contradictions...but we can....
edit on 23-2-2017 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join