I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Ace Otana]

I copied each of them into here http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.a...&dict=CALD

[Jon Paul]

I copied each of them into here http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.a...&dict=CALD

I just copied them in and found them all, except for "patristics". If you search for "patristics" on Google, you get 209,000 results though.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patristics


* Main Entry: pa·tris·tics
* Pronunciation: \-tiks\
* Function: noun plural but singular in construction
* Date: 1847

: the study of the writings and background of the church fathers

[Ace Otana]

That would explain it. I was unfamilar with some of those words.

[Jon Paul]

You changed your signature.

"Gods have to be so far out of reach from science and any methods of detection because they are easily killed off by it. Strange how god disapears when science comes walking by."

I will repeat what I've already said to Minimalist.

It's not God whose outside the reach of modern science. It's modern science which a priori excludes God from it's scope of investigation, because the scientific method defines it's aim as "the investigation of the natural world". And so, modern science a priori excludes anything which transcends the natural world as within the scope if it's investigation.

God is certainly within the reach of the classical scope and aim of science as "rational and empirical investigation".

That it is beyond direct empirical observation doesn't mean there cannot be indirect empirical evidence and traces of God. Like many other things, for instance, other consciousnesses and minds. We can only observe the mechanisms associated with them, not directly observe the consciousness/mind itself.

Or, if you see a footprint on the ground and no one around, you can presume that someone has been around even though they are beyond direct observation, that footprint (or a fingerprint) still serves as empirical evidence after the effect. This footprint metaphor describes how we can know God through empirical a posteriori knowledge of the observed universe and its nature, as done in my argument.

It's not beyond empirical and rational test. If I believed that, I wouldn't make an argument for Gods existence based on empirical knowledge of the universe. The reason it is beyond scientific test is not because it's outside direct empirical observation (many things in science are, and yet they are attested to by empirical evidence after the effect), it is because the scientific method a priori excludes anything outside of the natural world as within the scope of it's investigation. It is the philosophical presupposition of naturalism; methodological naturalism.

[Ace Otana]

If I am to consider god a possibility I must do the same with all superstitious beings and thought up characters. God is no differant from santa, easter bunny and I think you know the rest. They are all on the same level until evidence seperates imagination from reality. Did god create everything or he never actually existed. Did santa do it? Did Jad do it? All names and purposes that can be ultered for a being that is very improbable.

[amw79]

Years after years of hearing utter bullshit and it has never changed. So many words all to say so little. I guess that's religion for you. A pile of words that carry no weight.

Thats very easy to say. I could say the same about antitheists. But it makes no difference, without actual argumentation.

You claim, since some chick and dude named Adam ate a piece of fruit after God told them not to, that it is now my responsibility to seek out the catholic church to garner my info about the salvation of my mortal soul? Because, as you said, we don't have time to do it ourselves as it requires a lifetime of pious study.

Of course it's your own responsibility. You have a right to death and to hell.

Oh wait! Then you say something to the effect that I need not worry because on judgement day you'll be judged upon how much correct info you have been given? How much you were "shown the light" or however stupid way you put it.

That means that some gentile in a jungle isn't going to be judged for rejecting God on equal terms as a person with knowledge of Christianity. That is just a matter of justice. Perhaps his natural intuition of good will suffice for his salvation, only God knows, for God has written goodness in our hearts, in spite of the corruption of the fall which may cloud it, people still have a basic natural sense of the eternal law which might prevail over the temptations and the evils of this world. This natural sense is also called natural law.

If so arn't you now responsible for my damnation as you are "showing me the light" and I reject your "my interpretations are the only correct ones" contention?

That a person will be judged according to the light they have received, means that God will judge each one of us justly. So no, I am not responsible for your damnation. And who even says you will be damned? You are pretending to be God if you pretend to that knowledge. You are responsible for your own salvation, and if God damns you, that implicitly means that you have rejected God, for God sees all. And that also means choosing hell, for hell means the rejection of God, and thereby separation from communion with God.

You coulda just left well enough alone and me, in my ignorance cause I didn't even know what "patristic" meant until reading this thread, coulda slipped right by on judgement day. Damn you Jon.

You assume that you will be damned, which is a knowledge reserved to God, not to humans.

As Christians, our objective is not to say who is damned and who is not. We should rather focus on the miserableness of our own soul, rather than that of others. We should damn ourselves to hell, not others.

This is a lesson American evangelicals clearly haven't learnt. They tend to pretend to be the divine judge of who is damned and who is saved. They tell others that they will burn in hell, while they should be keeping their own mind in hell, for they don't know the destiny of others, or even if their own, since some of them may have rejected the True God and Gods True Church. Only God knows that destiny.

---

A large number of words jon used were not even words according to the cambridge dictionary.
I wonder if he was using all kinds of words that some were not even actual words to confuse and evade questions. "patristic, nonspatial, nontemporal, subsistent, epistemically, actualising". All these words were not recognised in the dictionary. I thought I saw something off when I was reading his posts. I read words that I did not recognise.
Odd that.

What dictionary have you been using? All those are words, though you are not writing them in their root from. Patristic (Christian term, referring to the Church Fathers), temporal (from Latin temporalis meaning "of time", as in temporary), spatial (meaning of space from Latin spatium), subsistence (from Latin subsistentia (sub+sistere) meaning substance, that which "stands under", and is independent, as opposed to standing "on top of" (super) - Latin form of Greek hypostasis), epistemic (from Greek episteme (epi- "over, near" + histasthai "to stand."), meaning to "understand"/"overstand", to know), actual (from Latin actus, meaning real or existing, as opposed to possible/potential).

Sorry JP and others. I wanted to stay out of all this and remain silent - I really did! But this comment "the miserableness of our own soul", really fucking 'got my goat'. Even accepting a notion of the soul (I'll call it the self in order to avoid any spiritual connotations), this comment just goes to show what Catholicism is based on, the idea of self-deprecation, which consequently provides the need for salvation or redemtion, which can only be given to us by, you've guessed it - a divine authority.

If your soul is miserable, and I suspect it is (what with that pesky original sin to deal with), speak to a qualified councilor, rather than attempt to pass your miserableness, off as my miserableness. I'm rather a happy fella as my friends will testify.

[Jon Paul]

Sorry JP and others. I wanted to stay out of all this and remain silent - I really did! But this comment "the miserableness of our own soul", really fucking 'got my goat'. Even accepting a notion of the soul (I'll call it the self in order to avoid any spiritual connotations), this comment just goes to show what Catholicism is based on, the idea of self-deprecation, which consequently provides the need for salvation or redemtion, which can only be given to us by, you've guessed it - a divine authority.

The first step in spiritual growth and progress is recognising that there is a problem, or in other words, that our spiritual state is low and unacceptable ("the miserableness of our own soul"). The next step is then to rise above that miserableness.

If your soul is miserable, and I suspect it is (what with that pesky original sin to deal with), speak to a qualified councilor, rather than attempt to pass your miserableness, off as my miserableness. I'm rather a happy fella as my friends will testify.

What I did was exactly to say that we as Christians should not go around pretending to be God and damning other peoples souls to hell, but to the contrary focus on the miserableness of our own soul, not that of OTHERS.

[Ace Otana]

But what makes you think that we are miserable? Did you know there is a third option when it comes to religion? There is always a good and bad side in religion's view but there is a third path and that is no religion at all. Have nothing to do with it.

As atheists we don't believe in souls, hell, heaven or god. So no worries. Nothing to fear.

[Jon Paul]

If I am to consider god a possibility I must do the same with all superstitious beings and thought up characters. God is no differant from santa, easter bunny and I think you know the rest. They are all on the same level until evidence seperates imagination from reality. Did god create everything or he never actually existed. Did santa do it? Did Jad do it?

What you call God is irrelevant.

God is called God in English, Allah in Arabic, Elohim in Hebrew, etc.

What is relevant is what you predicate of God.

If you predicate materiality, spatiality and temporality to to the creator of the universe, which you inherently do if you say the easter bunny is the creator of the universe, then you are in fact contradicting yourself, because your are predicating constituents of the spatiotemporal, material universe to the creator who either transcends all those constituents or does not, and is therefore not the creator but a part of the universe itself, like the easter bunny or the FSM or Santa Claus.

All names and purposes that can be ultered for a being that is very improbable.

As Dawkins says, in Climbing Mount Improbable, improbability does not preclude actuality (as Arcanus pointed out). But my claim of God has nothing even to do with probability, as probability is merely the likelihood from our limited knowledge of the totality of the universe, of a thing to take place and become actual within the already-existing universe.

---

But what makes you think that we are miserable? Did you know there is a third option when it comes to religion? There is always a good and bad side in religion's view but there is a third path and that is no religion at all. Have nothing to do with it.

As atheists we don't believe in souls, hell, heaven or god. So no worries. Nothing to fear.

I am quite aware of that. I was only clarifying Christian viewpoints.

[Ace Otana]

I'm just going to lay it out. Despite what you say an all. There is no reason for me to believe in a creator. My life runs well without that belief. My questions on how and why I'm here has already been answered by science. I see no reason to have any beliefs in a god. God remains on the same level as other thought up characters.

Now this is my last post for today. I'm going to sleep in tomorrow and such. So bye for now old chap.