(August 7, 2009 at 11:26 am)amw79 Wrote: So much for "Objective truth". The 'divine creation of the Lord' first transcribed by backward peasants of the day, then changed over time, then interpreted and re-interpreted by St. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great et al, then re-interpreted and re-iterated by you to finally anounce 'I think what god meant to say was.....' That's quite a bold statement you to be speaking on god's behalf. I've never been so sure of myself to announce such a grandiose intention.

Obviously thats not what I claim. What I claim is, a) the bible is not a scientific text, b) it is to be interpreted according to the tradition that the bible originates in, and that means you interpret it according to patristics, not according to chatpilot or anyone else's arbitrary opinion.

---

(August 7, 2009 at 11:26 am)amw79 Wrote: EVIDENCE. If you have any - provide it. Not a discussion about evidence, or the difference between subjective and objective evidence.

If you have read my posts until now and yet is unable to understand the evidence I propose for monotheism, then I suggest you retire to a silent role.

(August 7, 2009 at 11:26 am)amw79 Wrote: Nor references to previous posts claiming that evidence is there (i've checked - its not). Nor a diatribe about the metaphysics of potentiality and actuality. We'll leave the discussion about evidential validity until AFTER you've provided some.

If you have checked it and it is not, that must be because of your definition of evidence. That is exactly what makes your demand of evidence another subjective an irrelevant pestillence.

I have provided subjective evidence, because what I judge subjectively as evidence is evidence.

I have also provided objective evidence, because I have provided epistemic foundations for justified belief in monotheism which does not depend on subjective notions of evidence, but on logical coherence (the epistemological argument), and the evidential argument, which is established based on aposterioritic knowledge of the universe.

I have provided the foundations for coherent monotheism, and more than enough "evidence", both subjective and objective.

(August 7, 2009 at 11:32 am)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 7, 2009 at 11:26 am)amw79 Wrote: So much for "Objective truth". The 'divine creation of the Lord' first transcribed by backward peasants of the day, then changed over time, then interpreted and re-interpreted by St. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great et al, then re-interpreted and re-iterated by you to finally anounce 'I think what god meant to say was.....' That's quite a bold statement you to be speaking on god's behalf. I've never been so sure of myself to announce such a grandiose intention.

Obviously thats not what I claim. What I claim is, a) the bible is not a scientific text, b) it is to be interpreted according to the tradition that the bible originates in, and that means you interpret it according to patristics, not according to chatpilot or anyone else's arbitrary opinion.

---

(August 7, 2009 at 11:26 am)amw79 Wrote: EVIDENCE. If you have any - provide it. Not a discussion about evidence, or the difference between subjective and objective evidence.

If you have read my posts until now and yet is unable to understand the evidence I propose for monotheism, then I suggest you retire to a silent role.

(August 7, 2009 at 11:26 am)amw79 Wrote: Nor references to previous posts claiming that evidence is there (i've checked - its not). Nor a diatribe about the metaphysics of potentiality and actuality. We'll leave the discussion about evidential validity until AFTER you've provided some.

If you have checked it and it is not, that must be because of your definition of evidence. That is exactly what makes your demand of evidence another subjective an irrelevant pestillence.

I have provided subjective evidence, because what I judge subjectively as evidence is evidence.

I have also provided objective evidence, because I have provided epistemic foundations for justified belief in monotheism which does not depend on subjective notions of evidence, but on logical coherence (the epistemological argument), and the evidential argument, which is established based on aposterioritic knowledge of the universe.

I have provided the foundations for coherent monotheism, and more than enough "evidence", both subjective and objective.

You are quite clearly claiming to know "what god meant to say". Any other claim is a lie, and that is plain to see.

No evidence provided, simply more referrals to previous posts, and more discussion about subjective evidence. End of. Just because you may have wasted your life on theology and defending the indefensible, doesn't mean I'm gonna do the same.

I wish you well.

AW

(August 7, 2009 at 11:48 am)amw79 Wrote: You are quite clearly claiming to know "what god meant to say". Any other claim is a lie, and that is plain to see.

I am not claiming to know what God "meant to say", I am claiming to know of the proper frame of interpretation of what God really did say, and didn't just "mean" to do without doing. To know that, proper hermeneutics and exegesis is required, and you find that in patristic tradition. Not re-interpretations, but a living tradition of interpretation without the discontinuity that would be implied in the kind of reinterpretation chatpilot wishes to initate.

(August 7, 2009 at 11:48 am)amw79 Wrote: No evidence provided, simply more referrals to previous posts, and more discussion about subjective evidence. End of. Just because you may have wasted your life on theology and defending the indefensible, doesn't mean I'm gonna do the same.

Wasted my life? I am only 17, thank you very much, and I have been an atheist for most of my life so far.

(August 7, 2009 at 11:48 am)amw79 Wrote: No evidence provided, simply more referrals to previous posts, and more discussion about subjective evidence. End of.

You are saying that I have provided no evidence. The problem is, I have provided evidence. But you demand your own, special kind of evidence. You tell me what evidence to give you; you dismiss my arguments, not by refuting them, but merely by saying "not that evidence, some other evidence!".

In other words, what you have done is EXACTLY make subjective demands for evidence of a subjective kind, which is beyond all reasonableness.

You don't get to dictate what kind of evidence or argument I give. All you get to do, if this is to be rational discourse, is either refute it or remain silent.

(August 7, 2009 at 11:32 am)Jon Paul Wrote: What I claim is, a) the bible is not a scientific text, b) it is to be interpreted according to the tradition that the bible originates in, and that means you interpret it according to patristics, not according to chatpilot or anyone else's arbitrary opinion.

I need to educate myself in patristics in order to interpret, correctly, what the fuk it is this God of the bible is attempting to communicate?

So this Bible, inspired word of God meant for the salvation of all mankind cannot be understood correctly save for those who even know what the fuk patristics is and some long dead catholic dudes?

Wow. You really believe that?

Chatpilot's and my interpretations of "God's Word" are just as valid as yours and those long dead catholic dude's.

When I show someone a bible verse that tells you to pluck your eye out or cut your hand off if it offends you and they reply with "God didn't really literally mean that! He meant....yadda yadda yadda........ Beacuse why? Well, you know... those long dead catholic dudes said so."
I say No. It says pluck your eye out. It says cut your hand off. It says kill the blasphemer with your own hands.

The bible, like any other book, is "interpreted" by the reader. Any interpretation is just as valid as the next. Chatpilot's sig says it all.

A couple questions iffn' it's alright;

You think a personal God would inspire his words to be written to/for his special creation only to be correctly understood by a few catholics and then many years later only by those who research the writings of those dudes? If the bible were inspired to be written for the salvation of all mankind should it not be easily understood by all mankind?

Jon it seems that no matter what you are shown you seem to ignore what is in the scriptures and try to interpret it to fit your worldview (apologetics).So I will graciously bow out of this discussion.

(August 8, 2009 at 12:07 am)chatpilot Wrote: Jon it seems that no matter what you are shown you seem to ignore what is in the scriptures and try to interpret it to fit your worldview (apologetics).So I will graciously bow out of this discussion.

I agree ... it seems to be a theist trait. I too am struggling to find reason to continue as he never really seems to answer my points.

Kyu

I think Jon equates 'correct interpretation' with 'Jon's interpretation'.

I'd like to know why is it Jon deems the interpretations of long dead catholics the only 'correct' one.

(August 7, 2009 at 3:40 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 7, 2009 at 11:48 am)amw79 Wrote: No evidence provided, simply more referrals to previous posts, and more discussion about subjective evidence. End of.

You are saying that I have provided no evidence. The problem is, I have provided evidence. But you demand your own, special kind of evidence. You tell me what evidence to give you; you dismiss my arguments, not by refuting them, but merely by saying "not that evidence, some other evidence!".

In other words, what you have done is EXACTLY make subjective demands for evidence of a subjective kind, which is beyond all reasonableness.

You don't get to dictate what kind of evidence or argument I give. All you get to do, if this is to be rational discourse, is either refute it or remain silent.

There is no special kind of evidence. Evidence is something that is detectable and study-able material that separates reality from fantasy. It works rather well but not when it comes to religion. Evidence does not reside in books or scriptures. Your so called "god" is supposedly outside all known detection methods that also include our natural senses like sight, sound and touch. Which spark of doubts because there is nothing to confirm he/it's existence and so is reasonably rejected. God is only supported by an unreliable source that is superstition. Faith alone is all you have for this being. People also doubt and reject because it's easy to imagine an all powerful being. You cannot disprove it just as you cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster. Evidence is vital for progress in establishing a beings existence. Something we can detect and study and not just from some book or strange feelings.

(August 8, 2009 at 8:27 am)Ace Wrote: There is no special kind of evidence. Evidence is something that is detectable and study-able material that separates reality from fantasy.

No. Evidence is, in it's broadest sense, that which makes another thing evident, that which testifies to the truth of a given thing. But what exactly does do so (testify/make evident the truth of a thing) differs subjectively. And there are many kinds of evidence and knowledge, not just one kind.

(August 8, 2009 at 8:27 am)Ace Wrote: It works rather well but not when it comes to religion. Evidence does not reside in books or scriptures. Your so called "god" is supposedly outside all known detection methods that also include our natural senses like sight, sound and touch. Which spark of doubts because there is nothing to confirm he/it's existence and so is reasonably rejected. God is only supported by an unreliable source that is superstition. Faith alone is all you have for this being. People also doubt and reject because it's easy to imagine an all powerful being. You cannot disprove it just as you cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster. Evidence is vital for progress in establishing a beings existence. Something we can detect and study and not just from some book or strange feelings.

Sure, God in himself is outside our direct detection ability, like if I see some footprints in the snow and no animal, the animal is outside my direct detection ability. That doesn't mean there are no ways to know that the animal exists. You can still evaluate the aposteriori evidence that the animal was here, like you can evaluate the aposteriori evidence that God created the universe.

---

(August 7, 2009 at 5:06 pm)Dotard Wrote: So this Bible, inspired word of God meant for the salvation of all mankind cannot be understood correctly save for those who even know what the fuk patristics is and some long dead catholic dudes?

It can certainly be understood, but not if errorneous interpretations are being forwarded. That is why we have priests who are at the disposal of the people to provide hermeneutically and exegetically correct understanding of the bible.

(August 7, 2009 at 5:06 pm)Dotard Wrote: Chatpilot's and my interpretations of "God's Word" are just as valid as yours and those long dead catholic dude's.

This is a protestant notion. Your interpretations are certainly not as valid as the interpretations of the fathers. Just like mine isn't as valid. You have not spent your life studying the texts in their original translations, and understanding them in the light of proper exegesis and hermeneutics. And I haven't either, which is why I turn to those who have. For one, you only have access to English versions, translated a thousand times, for another, you don't have any engagement to spend your life studying the bible and understanding it.

(August 8, 2009 at 7:36 am)Dotard Wrote: I think Jon equates 'correct interpretation' with 'Jon's interpretation'.

I'd like to know why is it Jon deems the interpretations of long dead catholics the only 'correct' one.

My interpretations are irrelevant and certainly not as valid as those of the Church Fathers.

(August 7, 2009 at 5:06 pm)Dotard Wrote: You think a personal God would inspire his words to be written to/for his special creation only to be correctly understood by a few catholics and then many years later only by those who research the writings of those dudes? If the bible were inspired to be written for the salvation of all mankind should it not be easily understood by all mankind?

Just "a few people"? The Catholic Church together with the Orthodox is the biggest religion in the world, representing 1.6 billion people.

---

(August 8, 2009 at 12:07 am)chatpilot Wrote: Jon it seems that no matter what you are shown you seem to ignore what is in the scriptures and try to interpret it to fit your worldview (apologetics).So I will graciously bow out of this discussion.

No, it seems that you are expecting me to accept your (straw man) interpretation of the scriptures, rather than accepting the interpretations of the Church Fathers of the very religion I have said I am a member of since the start.

And you also expect me to accept your view of the Bible as a "scientific text", a notion I have rejected from the beginning. It is a book concerned with the relationship between God and Man, and so it's focus is inherently spiritual.