Hello!

[Edwardo Piet]

We're not talking about my beliefs, but theology, which you seek to pervert.

No, I don't ... I simply show that it is [expletive deleted]'s!

Kyu

Fr0d0,

I think perhaps Kyu is asking for you to give him any reason to believe Theology isn't a non-subject and a load of BS with no real substance to it (if you can)? Well, whether he's asking that or not: I ask that question myself.

EvF

[fr0d0]

If theology isn't a subject then why all the theological questions? You're clearly interested in it. You want to try to ask scientific questions of it which don't apply is the problem. Or dismiss it and replace it with science it seems. The questions are interesting and relevant.

[Edwardo Piet]

What theological question have I asked? What I'm doing is questioning theology itself, right? I want to know of any reason to believe it is actually a subject of study and not just all nonsense!

EvF

[fr0d0]

You want evidence right?

[Edwardo Piet]

Without exception I need evidence to believe something rationally, yes.

I need evidence to believe that theology isn't a load of nonsense, yes.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Thought so. You consistently deny logic so there's no more to be said.

[Edwardo Piet]

I've always thought asking for evidence in order to believe something was rational *shrugs*.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Thought so. You consistently deny logic so there's no more to be said.

In what way is the request for evidence a denial of logic?

Kyu

[Ryft]

I think perhaps Kyu is asking for you to give him any reason to believe theology isn't a non-subject and a load of BS with no real substance to it ... Well, whether he's asking that or not, I ask that question myself.

Theology is the foundation from which Christian philosophy is produced, which properly grounds, provides for the intelligibility of, and describes reality, logic, truth, metaphysics, reason, ethics, knowledge, science, etc. It is not a subject; it is the nexus of a constellation of subjects exhibiting a broad scope of substance. It is a complete and self-contained world view; i.e., no point of the system relies upon or even requires justifying warrant from an external system.

Now, I know what comes next. You want to evaluate it. I might guess that you think some field of inquiry is a valid subject with substance to it only in so far as it informs us correctly about reality. I might also guess that you think your epistemology does this. And the way you have been conditioned to evaluate something is by subjecting it to your epistemic criteria. However, that is inherently problematic. Here we interact with the logical problem that fr0d0 alludes to, I believe; i.e., validity, such that the implication of your stance results in the fallacy of petitio principii. To presuppose the truth of your epistemology within an evaluation of epistemology per se is to beg the question—reaching a conclusion by means of premises which presuppose that conclusion—an exercise in futility that will consistently yet invalidly vindicate your epistemology. It's an empty victory.

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.

[Rhizomorph13]

Arcanus,

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

I know the tools of science (Scanning Electron Microscope, Thermo-Mechanical Analyzer, ruler, etc.) and I trust them to make sense of the world.

What are the tools of Christianity?

Rhizo