Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Spiritual Epistemology (redux)

WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 10:22:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I posted this in the Philosophy forum two days ago, and got no takers, so let's try here.

"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." --William Lane Craig

Would anyone care to defend that statement, either as written or with respect to a different spiritual entity and/or religious faith, as a valid epistemology?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 4:52:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/4/2012 10:22:04 AM, WriterDave wrote:
I posted this in the Philosophy forum two days ago, and got no takers, so let's try here.

"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." --William Lane Craig

Would anyone care to defend that statement, either as written or with respect to a different spiritual entity and/or religious faith, as a valid epistemology?

Defend? You got to be kidding....If the belief of an individual is established to be contrary to the created order it is the belief that must change. Why is that a problem?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 5:49:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok, I'll give it a shot.

Perhaps the value of possessing a belief is more beneficial than believing in the opposite of that belief, even if the believe is false.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2012 6:25:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/4/2012 10:22:04 AM, WriterDave wrote:
I posted this in the Philosophy forum two days ago, and got no takers, so let's try here.

"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." --William Lane Craig

Would anyone care to defend that statement, either as written or with respect to a different spiritual entity and/or religious faith, as a valid epistemology?

The Fool: The First major problem there is not point of the statement, because if anybody actually witness the Holy spirit, I think they would be shitting their pants and be believers in the instant, we all would because it would be empirical evidence. Another problem is that there is not grounding definition for " Holy spirit" that doesn't end up looping to some other indefinable characteristic to define this one.
Holy
The word "Holy" tell us absolutely nothing, But Godlikeness but we need to know what they hell that would look like first. So therefore there is no actual way to possibly know you what it means because there is no actually experience requirement given to know what it is.

Spirit
The word "spirit" is and always has been and still is ridiculously vague. Not to be confuse with "spirit" in the sense of team spirit, or holiday spirit, or alcoholic beverages.

You can tell really vague word because the dictionary will have so many unclear definitions, you get a huge list when you look up the word spirit in the dictionary. That is because there is no actually clear standard. But a way to test the bibles understanding of spirit is simply to look back in time around that time. I know what spirit meant to The Greeks just before Jesus was supposedly born, at the time it's just referred to wind, such as passing air. Why? Back at the time, air was mysterious to them it was something invisible and yet they could hear it sometimes, and feel it. As in when you speak your spirit is coming out your mouth in voice. That is why we were got the idea of ghost as some partly invisible existence. This is also the meaning in the Real Bible. But the definitions have been twisted warped and redefined reinterpreted upon, other translation and more reinterpretation to try and make it fit with reality. This was all done by hand for 1500 year, with constant errors and inaccurate, by people who have all the reason to change what ever to remain in power. Because of this there is no way the Bibles truth could be rationally based, not that its meant to, it's meant to be faith based, suddenly some people have decided that faith is not enough. So now because we know what air is, the meaning of "spirit" in the bible loses its definition, because we can' t say the Holy spirit or the Holy ghost is just air now can we…. <(:D) But that is the truth, of the history of the meaning.

Attempt to supplant another definition to replace that one have been unsuccessful. It's often now change to a negative definition, As in the "spirit" means Not-mind yet Not-not matter, which just makes it not-ness. To say immaterial, intangible or incorporeally doesn't help either because again, it's just saying not-material. It tells us nothing about what it actually is. Just what it's not, which is a completely useless definition. People make a semantic fallacy when they think such definition have positive meaning, they often think it mean something exist when it's really saying something does not exist.

What is important to note about this quote is that there is no sense of witness because witness is a form of evidence, but it treats them like there are two complete entities. The point is that it makes the whole quote make no-sense at all. The reason it's stated so confidently is because it make the audience/readers assume that it must be true, based on the assumption that, somebody who is intelligent wouldn't say so confidently if it wasn't true. It's an appeal to confidence fallacy. It's a sneaky one.

This enlightenment has been brought to you By the Fool,straight from the hill!
"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