The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
Loki said:
You ask me to prove that the source of reason is God, and when I begin to do so you insult me and refuse to continue the discussion It would be difficult to think of a better example of the bigoted, intolerant, wilfully ignorant, know-nothing and just plain *stupid* attitude that typifies most atheists today. Shame on you.
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
I'm with you. Carry on.
I'm curious to see if whether you're going where I think you're going.
I'm curious to see if whether you're going where I think you're going.
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
John 1:1, while a rather beautiful line and idea has to be understood within the context.
Now it seems to me that the 'word' in this sense is refering to the perceived truths of 'god's message' as delivered through John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. It's not refering to general concpets about knowledge. If it refers to that at all it's in presuming that a handful of 'prophets' are the sum total of human knowledge.
Which is just horseshit. There's a vast amount of knowledge that has nothing to do with those gobshites.
Now it seems to me that the 'word' in this sense is refering to the perceived truths of 'god's message' as delivered through John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. It's not refering to general concpets about knowledge. If it refers to that at all it's in presuming that a handful of 'prophets' are the sum total of human knowledge.
Which is just horseshit. There's a vast amount of knowledge that has nothing to do with those gobshites.
Loki said:
You see, its the sheer *anger* I can´t fathom. I suppose it is the blind rage felt by fundamentalists of all stripes when someone dares to question the beliefs on which they have constructed their very identity. And there is no fundamentalist like an atheist fundamentalist.
inflatable jesus said:
Very well. We agree that reason consists in the ability to conceptualize. We agree that conceptualization is the subsumption of particular phenomena under general categories. Now let us apply the process of conceptualization to *concepts* themselves. What do we call the concept of concepts?
I shall be back to continue this discussion in due course, but I must first spend a couple of hours on Copacabana beach. Exquisite as the delights of theological debate may be, it would be churlish to neglect life´s other pleasures.
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
Is there a term in philosophy that refers to constructing silly explanations for other people's behavior because they like them better than the real ones?
For example, Dwyer deciding that Loki's problem is that Dwyer 'questioned the validity' of atheist principles, rather than thinking that his line of argument is boring and pointless.
If there isn't, I think a term has to be invented.
For example, Dwyer deciding that Loki's problem is that Dwyer 'questioned the validity' of atheist principles, rather than thinking that his line of argument is boring and pointless.
If there isn't, I think a term has to be invented.
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
phildwyer said:
I was kind of hoping that you would get to the point within a couple of posts. If you plan on taking a cliff-hangeriffic soap opera aproach then I probably won't be arsed.
inflatable jesus said:
No, you are wrong. The Greek word in question is "logos" and while the best translation is a matter of some dispute (to put it mildly--in fact it has been the cause of liteally hundreds of wars and revolutions) modern scholarly consensus agrees that the most accurate rendering is "reason."
So God is reason. Now the question becomes: what is reason?
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
That doesn't quite add up though.
I'm sure it would be interesting to look at the original wordings and the possible meanings but even if you go through the rest of of John 1, it becomes more and more difficult to believe that John thinks that God and reason are the same thing.
Like 1:10
You can't insert the idea of God as reason into that. What would 'nor of a human decision or a husband's will, but born of reason' possibly mean?
It seems fairly obvious that it's one line in the bible that's rather open to interpretation. It doesn't correlate at all with the various other descriptions of God throughout the bible. In fact at various points in seems clear that God much prefers obedience to reason.
I'm sure it would be interesting to look at the original wordings and the possible meanings but even if you go through the rest of of John 1, it becomes more and more difficult to believe that John thinks that God and reason are the same thing.
Like 1:10
You can't insert the idea of God as reason into that. What would 'nor of a human decision or a husband's will, but born of reason' possibly mean?
It seems fairly obvious that it's one line in the bible that's rather open to interpretation. It doesn't correlate at all with the various other descriptions of God throughout the bible. In fact at various points in seems clear that God much prefers obedience to reason.
inflatable jesus
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
Fair enough. Enjoy the beach.
inflatable jesus said:
That´s true, and I don´t regard the Bible as divinely inspired, much less infalliable. Or rather, perhaps, it is divinely inspired in the same sense as any other prophetic text. Certainly Judeo-Christianity has no monopoly on truth. However the lines you quote are quite compatible with the idea of God as reason. They would indicate that reason rather than biology is the definitive characteristic of a human being. This in turn would suggest that it is possible for human beings to lose or forfeit their humanity.
- Status
Similar threads
