Hello!

[Ryft]

So prayer or protractor right? Choosing one excludes the other?

This notion is so ridiculous on so many levels I have no idea what to do with it. Just wow.

[Rhizomorph13]

Arcanus,

The word for today is...

epistemology

Rhizo

[Kyuuketsuki]

It comes down to this. Christian metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with yours. And your metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with Christianity's.

It also comes down to this ... Christian metaphysics and epistemology achieve precisely [expletive deleted] all! By that I mean they prove nothing, demonstrate nothing, benefit the human race in no way except in the manner of a comfort blanket and b]that[/b] is what makes it (Christian Theology) a non-subject!

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

It comes down to this. Christian metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with yours. And your metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with Christianity's. What you have are two antithetical systems which you have to choose between. How you make that choice is up to you. My hunch is that, like most people, the one you choose will be the result of presupposing its truth. Why you presupposed the truth of that one over the other had no intellectual basis, since an intellectual basis requires metaphysical/epistemological criteria, which you don't have until after your choice. And finally, what you may not realize is that the Christian does the exact same thing.

The thing is, I am wondering how it's studied exactly? Because if there are no ways in which it can be skillfully studied, then just anyone could do it as well (or as badly) as anyone else.

And I don't see how there is any even footing until I know of any evidence that theology can be studied, in a way in which a 'top' theologian can 'study it' any better or worse than anyone else can/can't.

By what methods can you study God? Until there's evidence for God I don't see how theology can be a subject. How can you have methods for studying theology before there's any evidence for God?

EvF

[Ryft]

The thing is, I am wondering how ... [snip rest]

Since you could not be bothered to address anything in my post, I can't conjure up any reason to invest time and effort answering additional questions of yours. The time and consideration I put into answering your question directly was apparently of little value to you. I'm going to invest such energies into people that value it. I'm disappointed in myself for taking the time to write even this. For the record, two-thirds of this last post of yours was already addressed in that post of mine. Personally speaking, I ask questions for the purpose of finding answers, not for the purpose of simply asking questions.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Since you could not be bothered to address anything in my post

I did though and you didn't answer me so it strikes that you are simply seeking a way of avoiding those points you don't like to deal with ... in Ev's case by declaring it irrelevant and in mine by ignoring me because I'm in yer face.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

The thing is, I am wondering how ... [snip rest]

Since you could not be bothered to address anything in my post

Because your post didn't seem to answer my question at all. I want to know how you study it, when there's no evidence for the very thing you're studying? Unless you can enlighten me with some evidence that is.

So by what methods can you study it, and how, when there's no evidence for God? And if there is evidence for God...what evidence?

EvF

[Ryft]

Because your post didn't seem to answer my question at all. I want to know how you study it, when there's no evidence for the very thing you're studying.

My post did answer your question, by pointing out that theology is not an "it" or one singular "thing." See my first paragraph. It's like asking that someone tell you how philosophy is studied, which cannot be answered because it is a huge arena of numerous subjects; we study subject X in this way, and subject Y in that way, etc. For example, one does not study Logic in the same way that one studies Ethics.

Furthermore, your insistent request for evidence of God was also answered by my post. See my second paragraph. You want to evaluate the Christian view by presupposing the truth of your view, but that simply will not work and will lead to question-begging consequences. Watch carefully now.

1. When it comes to determining the truth of something, you need to use (i) a definition of truth and (ii) a set of criteria that is consistent with it (metaphysics and epistemology). Now, which definition and criteria do you use? Do you use the Definition & Criteria set from your world view, A, or do you use the Definition/Criteria set from the Christian world view, B?

2. You would of course use A. Now, what are you going to find out by using A to evaluate B? The only thing you can find out: that there is a conflict between B and A, because they are antithetical. As I had said, "Christian metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with yours. And your metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with Christianity's."

3. But does this mean that B is false? Only if A is true. So how do you determine whether or not A is true? Well therein lies the problem, in virtue of the fact that A contains the definition of truth and its methodological criteria. Consequently, if you determine the truth of A by using A you commit the logical fallacy of begging the question, reaching a conclusion by means of premises which presuppose that conclusion.

See my third paragraph: "It comes down to this. Christian metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with yours. And your metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with Christianity's. What you have are two antithetical systems which you have to choose between. How you make that choice is up to you. My hunch is that, like most people, the one you choose will be the result of presupposing its truth. Why you presupposed the truth of that one over the other had no intellectual basis, since an intellectual basis requires metaphysical/epistemological criteria, which you don't have until after your choice. And finally, what you may not realize is that the Christian does the exact same thing."

[Kyuuketsuki]

It comes down to this. Christian metaphysics and epistemology is not consistent with yours.

It also comes down to this ... Christian metaphysics and epistemology achieve precisely [expletive deleted] all! By that I mean they prove nothing, demonstrate nothing, benefit the human race in no way except in the manner of a comfort blanket and b]that[/b] is what makes it (Christian Theology) a non-subject!

Kyu

[Jon Paul]

It also comes down to this ... Christian metaphysics and epistemology achieve precisely [expletive deleted] all! By that I mean they prove nothing, demonstrate nothing, benefit the human race in no way except in the manner of a comfort blanket and b]that[/b] is what makes it (Christian Theology) a non-subject!

Your objection is invalid to the point Arcanus was raising. In fact, your objection proves the point Arcanus was raising, because your objection is simply a reassertion of your own worldviews presuppositions.