(April 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: However, out of curiosity, if metaphysical questions are a product of the human mind's attempt to understand the nature of reality, then could the human mind also be projecting the existence of metaphysical answers/truths onto reality?  In other words, how can humanity accurately  discern objective metaphysical truth from preconceived notions of metaphysical truth?

Metaphysical truths include things like the Principle of Non-Contradiction. If the PNC is not true then that would mean that reason itself is not effective. That is a self-defeating position.

(April 24, 2017 at 3:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: However, out of curiosity, if metaphysical questions are a product of the human mind's attempt to understand the nature of reality, then could the human mind also be projecting the existence of metaphysical answers/truths onto reality?  In other words, how can humanity accurately  discern objective metaphysical truth from preconceived notions of metaphysical truth?

Metaphysical truths include things like the Principle of Non-Contradiction. If the PNC is not true then that would mean that reason itself is not effective. That is a self-defeating position.

"Metaphysical=Hindu speed of light" Oh suddenly now that doesn't make sense?
"Metaphysical=Buddhist theory of gravity" Oh that doesn't make sense either?
"Metaphysical=Yahweh theory of relativity" Surely that has some teeth to it?
"Metaphysical=Yoda theory of force", You like Yoda don't you, come on, everyone loves Yoda.

(April 24, 2017 at 3:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: However, out of curiosity, if metaphysical questions are a product of the human mind's attempt to understand the nature of reality, then could the human mind also be projecting the existence of metaphysical answers/truths onto reality?  In other words, how can humanity accurately  discern objective metaphysical truth from preconceived notions of metaphysical truth?

Metaphysical truths include things like the Principle of Non-Contradiction. If the PNC is not true then that would mean that reason itself is not effective. That is a self-defeating position.

There are instances where the PNC is not considered true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

BTW, has anyone mentioned a white hot seething hatred of their parents yet ???

Seems like Jesus mentioned that . . . .

(April 24, 2017 at 7:42 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(April 24, 2017 at 3:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Metaphysical truths include things like the Principle of Non-Contradiction. If the PNC is not true then that would mean that reason itself is not effective. That is a self-defeating position.

There are instances where the PNC is not considered true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

I know you meant well, MH. Linking to a long Wikipedia article is not very helpful to me. I'm not sure what you want be to tease out of it. To me the PnC is an absolute: something cannot be both simultaneously true and not true in all the same ways.

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:Metaphysical truths include things like the Principle of Non-Contradiction.  If the PNC is not true then that would mean that reason itself is not effective. That is a self-defeating position.

Thank you for mentioning this point, Neo-Scholastic.

With all due respect and out of curiosity, does god have both rational and irrational qualities [A]? Assuming [A] is the case, from a theistic view, if god is the ultimate source of metaphysical truth and people are to be representatives of god’s attributes, then do they also put god’s irrationality into practice (would this explain the presence of conflicting/contradictory religious ideas/truths)? Thus, is reason an effective tool to use in understanding/justifying one’s theistic beliefs/position, or does utilizing this tool ultimately lead one to a self-defeating position? Is it necessary to have a blend of rationality and irrationality in order to make sense of one's beliefs? Hence, from a theistic view, does the PNC always hold?

Thank you for your time, attention, and thoughtful responses.

(April 24, 2017 at 9:09 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 24, 2017 at 7:42 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: There are instances where the PNC is not considered true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

I know you meant well, MH. Linking to a long Wikipedia article is not very helpful to me. I'm not sure what you want be to tease out of it. To me the PnC is an absolute: something cannot be both simultaneously true and not true in all the same ways.

Well, you can look at the issues with PNC in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy also. Of course, those are long also:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contradiction/

And of course you consider it absolute, it's one of the ways to argue/debate/philosophize god(s) into existence. 

I don't consider it to be absolute.

(April 24, 2017 at 10:25 am)SteveII Wrote: 1. Are you really asking me if it is probable that tens of billions people making hundreds of millions of interacting choices each would always choose good? I am highly confident that it is impossible.

How many different ways should I make it clear that I am asking you to demonstrate that it is actually impossible that all human beings would choose good all the time? I don't care for mere expressions of incredulity about the possibility, I want you to demonstrate that it is impossible. If you can't do that, then it's a legit objection that you have not been able to rule out.

To put this in a Biblical way: If Adam and Eve had never eaten from the forbidden tree, would their descendants have inevitably disobeyed God by eating from the tree?

To be free to do good means to be free to do good all the time.

Quote:2. I do not have to show that it is impossible in order to undercut your premise. I have shown that your premise is highly improbable--probably approaching impossible--and that is sufficient to cast doubt on the conclusion.

Steve, if it is at all possible, then this does undercut the argument that God could not have created a better would.

Quote:3. This might be a definition problem of Free Will. This is the one I go by:

Definition: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298)

Of course there are internal factors that shape our choices (circumstance/knowledge/memories/beliefs/feelings/etc.). The fact that we decide what to do without any external constraints is free will.

Then that makes you a compatibilist, essentially a determinist. You don't adhere to libertarian free will. But then, how is this a useful type of free will to argue for in the context of this discussion? At the end of the day, compatibilism/determinism implies that you couldn't have been some other way and that therefore every choice you make was predetermined (even if you made the choice in accordance with your preferences, personal experience, understanding of life, etc.). And if everything you do (including your intentions) are predetermined, then why is God punishing anyone for failures that they couldn't have avoided doing? He could've simply created all human beings to be predetermined to not fail and thereby avoid punishment and other repercussions ...

Well, this would be a characteristic, no?

A NT Christian would probably destroy the credit card machines at any TV ministry they might encounter, and they would do it by overturning the office furniture they are mounted upon, and probably would also use a whip to keep the TV ministry people at bay while destroying those credit card machines.

(April 25, 2017 at 1:11 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Well, this would be a characteristic, no?

A NT Christian would probably destroy the credit card machines at any TV ministry they might encounter, and they would do it by overturning the office furniture they are mounted upon, and probably would also use a whip to keep the TV ministry people at bay while destroying those credit card machines.

There is no correct way to "interpret" any holy book, that is why you have liberal Christians and conservative Christians. You ask  a guuuuuuuuun toten bible thumping right winger and thy will also quote the NT, their version of "give to the poor" is "get a job".And they only want to tip the change carts so they can keep it for themselves and or their right wing church. 

This is the part where our resident Christians go, "Bu bu that is a gross mischaracterization".

There isn't a wrong way to play Dungeons and Dragons, or Risk either, just like Monopoly, you can choose pieces and pick your moves.