Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Substantive Problems with Proof

logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 8:31:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

The Fool: theology its self is an attempt to use philosohpy within the framework of a religion. The theologin assumes the religion first. The problem is that of late theologins who come directly from theology school mask under the title philosohper, whom they have always been at apposed too. They use this mask with ill intentions to bash philosophers. Particularly because its been long agreed in philosophy that a proof of the supernatural is impossible.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 8:33:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 8:31:40 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

The Fool: theology its self is an attempt to use philosohpy within the framework of a religion. The theologin assumes the religion first. The problem is that of late theologins who come directly from theology school mask under the title philosohper, whom they have always been at apposed too. They use this mask with ill intentions to bash philosophers. Particularly because its been long agreed in philosophy that a proof of the supernatural is impossible.

So you acknowledge it is a fact, the project your subjectivism. Thanks
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 8:40:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 8:33:42 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:31:40 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

The Fool: theology its self is an attempt to use philosohpy within the framework of a religion. The theologin assumes the religion first. The problem is that of late theologins who come directly from theology school mask under the title philosohper, whom they have always been at apposed too. They use this mask with ill intentions to bash philosophers. Particularly because its been long agreed in philosophy that a proof of the supernatural is impossible.

So you acknowledge it is a fact, the project your subjectivism. Thanks

The Fool: where do you read that? lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 8:44:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Totally agree

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

I do not agree that Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate. I would ask that you provide some evidence for that claim. I have thought Catholics considered the Bible to be inerrant as well as Protestants.

Would you mind listing the 7 theologies you claim are distinct please?

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 8:52:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 8:44:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Totally agree

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

I do not agree that Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate. I would ask that you provide some evidence for that claim. I have thought Catholics considered the Bible to be inerrant as well as Protestants.

Would you mind listing the 7 theologies you claim are distinct please?

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

See Evangelicals. Main stream are more towards orthodox, but Lutherans (many), Methodist and down the spectrum to Baptist use the KJV as the words of God.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 8:57:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 8:44:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Totally agree

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

I do not agree that Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate. I would ask that you provide some evidence for that claim. I have thought Catholics considered the Bible to be inerrant as well as Protestants.

Would you mind listing the 7 theologies you claim are distinct please?

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

Well I shall list seven theologies, there are many more.
Suma of Thomas Aquinas
Suma of Duns Scotus
Luther
Calvin
Greek Orthodox
Anglican

Then we have the subsections of Moral, Sacramental, Apologetic, Epistemology, Ecclesiology, etc. Ann the role of conjuctive v. Disjunctive and/or Do or do not have Sacraments...all in all if you look hard enogh you can find a theology for every possible belief system. (Unitarian)
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 9:21:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 8:52:40 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:44:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Totally agree

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

I do not agree that Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate. I would ask that you provide some evidence for that claim. I have thought Catholics considered the Bible to be inerrant as well as Protestants.

Would you mind listing the 7 theologies you claim are distinct please?

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

See Evangelicals. Main stream are more towards orthodox, but Lutherans (many), Methodist and down the spectrum to Baptist use the KJV as the words of God.

The Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists I know do not believe the KJV is the ONLY accurate version of the Bible. Actually most of them would say it is not accurate particularly for out culture.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 9:36:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 9:21:24 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:52:40 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:44:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Totally agree

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

I do not agree that Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate. I would ask that you provide some evidence for that claim. I have thought Catholics considered the Bible to be inerrant as well as Protestants.

Would you mind listing the 7 theologies you claim are distinct please?

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

See Evangelicals. Main stream are more towards orthodox, but Lutherans (many), Methodist and down the spectrum to Baptist use the KJV as the words of God.

The Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists I know do not believe the KJV is the ONLY accurate version of the Bible. Actually most of them would say it is not accurate particularly for out culture.

The ones you know or the Conference position? The important issues with KJV is abscence of the Septuagint and use of Elizabethan english.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 10:40:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 9:36:32 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 9:21:24 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:52:40 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:44:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Totally agree

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

I do not agree that Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate. I would ask that you provide some evidence for that claim. I have thought Catholics considered the Bible to be inerrant as well as Protestants.

Would you mind listing the 7 theologies you claim are distinct please?

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

See Evangelicals. Main stream are more towards orthodox, but Lutherans (many), Methodist and down the spectrum to Baptist use the KJV as the words of God.

The Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists I know do not believe the KJV is the ONLY accurate version of the Bible. Actually most of them would say it is not accurate particularly for out culture.

The ones you know or the Conference position? The important issues with KJV is abscence of the Septuagint and use of Elizabethan english.

What I am saying is that the BoP is on you my friend.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 1:00:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 10:40:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 9:36:32 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 9:21:24 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:52:40 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:44:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Totally agree

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

I do not agree that Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate. I would ask that you provide some evidence for that claim. I have thought Catholics considered the Bible to be inerrant as well as Protestants.

Would you mind listing the 7 theologies you claim are distinct please?

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

See Evangelicals. Main stream are more towards orthodox, but Lutherans (many), Methodist and down the spectrum to Baptist use the KJV as the words of God.

The Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists I know do not believe the KJV is the ONLY accurate version of the Bible. Actually most of them would say it is not accurate particularly for out culture.

The ones you know or the Conference position? The important issues with KJV is abscence of the Septuagint and use of Elizabethan english.

What I am saying is that the BoP is on you my friend.

Fine....you miss the point. Try reading. take out KJV substitute bible.....its subordinate to the point anyway.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 4:32:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 1:00:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 10:40:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 9:36:32 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 9:21:24 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:52:40 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:44:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Totally agree

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

I do not agree that Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate. I would ask that you provide some evidence for that claim. I have thought Catholics considered the Bible to be inerrant as well as Protestants.

Would you mind listing the 7 theologies you claim are distinct please?

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

See Evangelicals. Main stream are more towards orthodox, but Lutherans (many), Methodist and down the spectrum to Baptist use the KJV as the words of God.

The Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists I know do not believe the KJV is the ONLY accurate version of the Bible. Actually most of them would say it is not accurate particularly for out culture.

The ones you know or the Conference position? The important issues with KJV is abscence of the Septuagint and use of Elizabethan english.

What I am saying is that the BoP is on you my friend.

Fine....you miss the point. Try reading. take out KJV substitute bible.....its subordinate to the point anyway.

Are you really this thick bro?!?!? YOU SAID "Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail." YOU made an assertion and aught to back it up. I should try reading? You should try backing up your claims.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 5:10:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 4:32:13 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 1:00:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 10:40:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 9:36:32 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 9:21:24 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:52:40 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:44:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Totally agree

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

I do not agree that Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate. I would ask that you provide some evidence for that claim. I have thought Catholics considered the Bible to be inerrant as well as Protestants.

Would you mind listing the 7 theologies you claim are distinct please?

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

See Evangelicals. Main stream are more towards orthodox, but Lutherans (many), Methodist and down the spectrum to Baptist use the KJV as the words of God.

The Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists I know do not believe the KJV is the ONLY accurate version of the Bible. Actually most of them would say it is not accurate particularly for out culture.

The ones you know or the Conference position? The important issues with KJV is abscence of the Septuagint and use of Elizabethan english.

What I am saying is that the BoP is on you my friend.

Fine....you miss the point. Try reading. take out KJV substitute bible.....its subordinate to the point anyway.

Are you really this thick bro?!?!? YOU SAID "Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail." YOU made an assertion and aught to back it up. I should try reading? You should try backing up your claims.

No, I hold to the claim, It is subordinate to the position, as is your failure to understand....General.....I aint your bro.
joneszj
Posts: 1,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 5:25:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 5:10:39 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 4:32:13 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 1:00:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 10:40:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 9:36:32 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 9:21:24 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:52:40 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:44:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Totally agree

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

I do not agree that Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate. I would ask that you provide some evidence for that claim. I have thought Catholics considered the Bible to be inerrant as well as Protestants.

Would you mind listing the 7 theologies you claim are distinct please?

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

See Evangelicals. Main stream are more towards orthodox, but Lutherans (many), Methodist and down the spectrum to Baptist use the KJV as the words of God.

The Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists I know do not believe the KJV is the ONLY accurate version of the Bible. Actually most of them would say it is not accurate particularly for out culture.

The ones you know or the Conference position? The important issues with KJV is abscence of the Septuagint and use of Elizabethan english.

What I am saying is that the BoP is on you my friend.

Fine....you miss the point. Try reading. take out KJV substitute bible.....its subordinate to the point anyway.

Are you really this thick bro?!?!? YOU SAID "Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail." YOU made an assertion and aught to back it up. I should try reading? You should try backing up your claims.

No, I hold to the claim, It is subordinate to the position, as is your failure to understand....General.....I aint your bro.

You hold to an unfounded assertion.....bro! Which in turn makes your position unfounded.....bro!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2012 8:31:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 5:25:02 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 5:10:39 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 4:32:13 PM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 1:00:51 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 10:40:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 9:36:32 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 9:21:24 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:52:40 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:44:42 AM, joneszj wrote:
At 3/8/2012 8:20:05 AM, logicrules wrote:
Reading the religion forum has established, for me, that many choose to use an nascence of theological understanding as a justification for irrational belief.

First, regarding causation there are only two possibilities 1) There is a First Cause which is Uncaused or 2) There is no Uncaused Cause. Both of these require, what is known in thought as, a reasonable inference.

Totally agree

Second, The number of different theologies are legion. Within the category of Christian there are at least seven distinct theologies. The largest distinction is made between Orthodox and Protestant. Orthodox, in general, do NOT consider the bible to be accurate in every detail. Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail.

I do not agree that Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate. I would ask that you provide some evidence for that claim. I have thought Catholics considered the Bible to be inerrant as well as Protestants.

Would you mind listing the 7 theologies you claim are distinct please?

Third, every credible theology makes a distinction between knowledge and belief (faith). Applying this distinction, no believing person will ever prove God's existence, because to do so would negate the very faith he claims to have. Eg "Do you believe in abortion?" Abortion exist, no belief required.

Please note the absence of universals and the generalization. There are exceptions, but the criterion is not the individuals revelation, a protestant Doctrine of some.

See Evangelicals. Main stream are more towards orthodox, but Lutherans (many), Methodist and down the spectrum to Baptist use the KJV as the words of God.

The Lutherans, Baptists, and Methodists I know do not believe the KJV is the ONLY accurate version of the Bible. Actually most of them would say it is not accurate particularly for out culture.

The ones you know or the Conference position? The important issues with KJV is abscence of the Septuagint and use of Elizabethan english.

What I am saying is that the BoP is on you my friend.

Fine....you miss the point. Try reading. take out KJV substitute bible.....its subordinate to the point anyway.

Are you really this thick bro?!?!? YOU SAID "Protestant, in general, consider only the KJV to be accurate, and accurate in every instance and detail." YOU made an assertion and aught to back it up. I should try reading? You should try backing up your claims.

No, I hold to the claim, It is subordinate to the position, as is your failure to understand....General.....I aint your bro.

You hold to an unfounded assertion.....bro! Which in turn makes your position unfounded.....bro!

That is his special. I keep telling that.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 6:21:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/8/2012 8:31:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
That is his special. I keep telling that.

This is why I know you can not read. You argue over what one calls the uncaused case, which you claim must be proved. Classic Pettitio fallacy.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 8:23:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Reading the your posts has established, for me, that the old saying "Some people just like to hear themselves talk" can be modernized into "Some people just like to read their own posts".
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2012 8:44:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/9/2012 8:23:04 AM, Floid wrote:
Reading the your posts has established, for me, that the old saying "Some people just like to hear themselves talk" can be modernized into "Some people just like to read their own posts".

Good for you