Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 21, 2024, 10:56 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 7 Vote(s) - 2.71 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!
RE: I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)amw79 Wrote: I disagree, I've read up on 'actus purus', throughout this debate (although one really couldn't call it that, as direct questions do not seem to get direct answers), and it is, for me, simply an empty phrase with no inherant meaning. If you get life-enhancing meaning from such word salad, great; but don't expect anyone else to accept meaningless definitions from a discipline whose whole purpose is to assert the unproveable.
Since you say actus purus "has no meaning", and is an empty phrase "for you", this can only mean you don't understand the contexual evidence of potentiality that it builds on, without which it indeed is incomprehensible and doesn't have meaning. It's meaning lies in the distinction between actus and potentia. I can only recommend you to look this up, though I have already described it numerous times. What you need to understand is what kind of realities these terms are referring to, as the point with them is exactly to distinguish between different kinds of realities in the context of the temporal plane of existence. Wikipedia has an article about actus et potentia; the Catholic encyclopedia has one as well. I can recommend both to some extent, though neither are elaborative.
The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.
-G. K. Chesterton
RE: I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!
(August 10, 2009 at 6:35 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)amw79 Wrote: I disagree, I've read up on 'actus purus', throughout this debate (although one really couldn't call it that, as direct questions do not seem to get direct answers), and it is, for me, simply an empty phrase with no inherant meaning. If you get life-enhancing meaning from such word salad, great; but don't expect anyone else to accept meaningless definitions from a discipline whose whole purpose is to assert the unproveable.
Since you say actus purus "has no meaning", and is an empty phrase "for you", this can only mean you don't understand the contexual evidence of potentiality that it builds on, without which it indeed is incomprehensible and doesn't have meaning. It's meaning lies in the distinction between actus and potentia. I can only recommend you to look this up, though I have already described it numerous times. What you need to understand is what kind of realities these terms are referring to, as the point with them is exactly to distinguish between different kinds of realities in the context of the temporal plane of existence. Wikipedia has an article about actus et potentia; the Catholic encyclopedia has one as well. I can recommend both to some extent, though neither are elaborative.

I have read up on all the above terms, and more besides. Arse-gravy, the lot. Concepts invented by theologians in order to attempt to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion - God.

As these theologians are merely subjective minds, I reserve my right to dismiss their conjecture.

In some of my googling of these terms, I found another atheist forum which you had infiltrated, which went round and round in a similar manner - with you asserting the same arguments, and very often falling back on the "You just don't understand", as you have done again here.

I do understand, I just don't accept your arguments, as they are set up as unquestionable, unverifiable, and indemonstrable.
RE: I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!
(August 10, 2009 at 6:46 pm)amw79 Wrote: I have read up on all the above terms, and more besides. Arse-gravy, the lot. Concepts invented by theologians in order to attempt to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion - God.
Right. The distinction between actus and potentia originates in Aristotles works, and has since been developed by Aristotelian Christian and Islamic writers, who took over the Greek body of literature.
(August 10, 2009 at 6:46 pm)amw79 Wrote: I do understand, I just don't accept your arguments, as they are set up as unquestionable, unverifiable, and indemonstrable.
They are certainly not unverifiable, and certainly not indemonstrable. They are only unquestionable if they are correct and void of fallacies.

Note, that rather than rationally refuting the argument by pointing to a fallacy in it, you have simply asserted your dislike of it.
The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.
-G. K. Chesterton
RE: I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!
(July 17, 2009 at 4:38 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: Hello, everyone.

Need I explain more? I saw the 'I am a Christian, ask me a question' thread and decided this gentleman had the right idea. I realise there are other threads on the forum, but many are either several pages long or simply dead and I am not a fan of thread-necromancy. Another added bonus is that this thread will not be in danger of de-railing, we can jump from topic-to-topic without issue. I will try and answer any questions you may have on God and Christianity from an orthodox Christian perspective. I consider this all just a further part of my learning process. Put my self and my beliefs to the test as it were.

A few rules of engagement then; I may not have perfect typing skills, but 99% of the time I am coherent enough to understand so no nitpicking at typo's please. I would appreciate it if we can both agree not to link to large and long articles. If I want long and eye-numbing I would sit down with St Thomas Aquinas (as much as I love his works). I would ask if we could keep the flames and the insults to a minimum but, I don't want to take away all of the fun, eh?

Well, fire in I guess. No need to fear as I am not a frightened doe, I wont run away from tough questions and if I cannot answer them I will say so. Then I will go away and cry my self to sleep to then come back with a vengeance!

Regards,
JP.

How do you explain the fact that the Earth and rocks from our solar sytem have been dated through radioactive isotopes to be 4.5 billion years old? If you don't know what an isotope is or anything about dating a rock then don't answer. I've yet to ask a Christian that question and get one that even knew what I was talking about.

I'm a Geology major...don't give me a BS answer because I'll eat you alive.
RE: I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: And atheism is not a worldview. Unless you consider 'the view of absolutely anybody who does not believe in God' to be a worldview.
A worldview means a view of the world. Any person who is living has a view of the world.
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Not believing in God is not a 'belief system', and how exactly is 1 mere absence of a belief a 'worldview'?
It is an atheistic worldview, insofar as it does not affirm the existence of God. I am not making generalisations about any other part of the worldview, than what is signified by "atheist".
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Atheism =not believing in God, plus and minus anything else. Not exactly a 'view', anything else is just correlation and not causation. Not part of the definition.
Exactly.
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: You can talk about an atheist's worldview, but I don't see how you can accurately talk about an atheist worldview.
I have said more often, "atheistic worldviews", signifying that all they have in common is the non-affirmation of God's existence. "The atheist worldview" only signifies a worldview which explicitly does not affirm the existence of God, in other words, exactly what is required to live up to the definition of "atheism", and nothing more.
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: You can't apply any attributes to atheism by definiton, other tahn non-belief in God.
And that's exactly the only defining attribute I have predicated of atheistic worldviews, namely the non-affirmation of God's existence, nothing more than can be summarised by the word "atheist".
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: You've failed to show that atheism itself even has a epistemic structure, is a belief system, or a worldview. Atheism is what happens when a group of people get together who don't believe in God. So although there are common similarities, the definition is very very wide. So to speak of 'the epistemic structure of atheism' is to speak of 'the epistemic structure of anyone who doesn't believe in God'...
Atheism is not a belief system. I never said that it was. I was myself annoyed when some ignorant Christians called it that, when I was an atheist, and I did not commit this mistake.

Whether a thing is a belief system or not, is not the point with the term "worldview". The term "worldview" refers to the view of the world that a person has, and any person has such a view. It refers to the lenses through which we interpret reality.

An atheist interprets reality through Godless lenses, which implies an atheist worldview, namely one without God. That has epistemic consequences, namely the consequence of non affirmation of Gods existence in the epistemic structure of an atheists worldview.
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: And you have not shown that all atheists don't believe in objective truth.
Of course not! I have not shown that atheists do not believe in it, because they obviously do in praxis. It is exactly in theory I have been dealing with, because atheism is a designation referring to the theoretical position of a persons non-affirmation of God's existence.

What I have shown is that the epistemic structure of an atheistic worldview, or in otherwords, any godless epistemic structure, is unable to perform that which atheists themselves require of it - the objective validity and rational integrity of logical truths, for instance.

Which is entirely different from the obvious contradictions of exactly that epistemic structure which atheists commit all the time.
(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: As far as I'm concerned you do the same though. You interpret reality without God too because he doesn't exist. The fact you believe he does is irrelevant. An no - I don't claim to 'know' this.
That's not what I meant. I did not mean that atheists ontologically interpret reality without God, or that Christians ontologically do so. I meant that atheists epistemically interpret reality without God, like Christians epistemically interpret reality with God.
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: It does no good to say I have to establish the logic before the evidence. Because whether I do or don't, you've still failed to show objective truth exists, and that it supports 'God' somehow.
Objective truth does not "support God somehow". I am not arguing from objective truth->God, in which case I should have presented evidence for objective truth (which would be literally, an epistemological impossibility). A misunderstanding of the argument, yet again.
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:
Quote:Atheism refutes even the possibility of it's own objective truth.
If that's the case, then so does theism - because the fact you and other theists alike believe in 'objective truth' (at least in the 'absolute' sense - the only sense you seem to accept it), doesn't mean you've in anyway demonstrated that it actually exists. Because you haven't, have you?
We are not speaking about the ontological demonstration of objective truth. It's not like atheists have refuted the ontological possibility for objective truth. They have rejected, epistemically, the ontological requirements for objective truth. That does not mean that their epistemic structure shows the truth. In fact, it means the opposite, since their epistemic structure cannot support such a truth, because it reduces truth to the inclinations of individual brain chemistry.

(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If does no good to say 'oh but I don't need to do that because the logic has to be set up before you can even speak of evidence' - because you still can't pretend to have shown that objective truth exists
I would not be able to ever pretend to have demonstrated anything logically, if logical truth and objectivity, the authority of the very standards of argumentation we use to distinguish between fallacy and truth, is not first coherently integrally basic in my epistemic structure.
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If it's ridiculous for me to ask for evidence of objective truth itself, then that doesn't mean you can logically assert that it somehow exists, How does it?
I can logically assert that objective truth exists, if it is integral and basic to my epistemic structure that it so does.

Whereas, one cannot logically assert that objective truth does not exist, because then the law of noncontradiction is not objectively true, and then the claim itself is just as false as it is true.
(August 10, 2009 at 6:25 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: you haven't demonstrated objectivity in anywway. You say don't need to and that's a fallacy.
No, it's not a fallacy. It's exactly you who are committing a fallacy by thinking you can take a leap from subjective notion of evidence of objective truth->actual objective truth.

None of the professional atheists rebuttals of TAG have built on this, because it is a fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcenden...nce_of_God

You can only go from subjective notion of evidence of objective truth->subjective notion of objective truth. Only if objective truth is taken as properly basic belief in the sense of belief in it's origin outside subjective discourse, in an objective mind, then you can achieve objective truth.

You cannot deny it and maintain logical discourse with another subjective person, just like you cannot have logical discourse which denies the law of contradiction, because then the position you are advocating is as false as it is true. And that logical law is also subjective and therefore logical discourse impossible, without the objective transcendence of logical order being integrate in your epistemic structure, as a premise for any other logical proposition.

The issue is there, that the proposition "the law of contradiction is false" refutes itself, because then the falsity of the proposition is still the case, and it equals to affirming the truth of it. It is a self-refuting proposition, much like the failure to affirm the existence of God.
(August 10, 2009 at 7:18 pm)dry land fish Wrote: How do you explain the fact that the Earth and rocks from our solar sytem have been dated through radioactive isotopes to be 4.5 billion years old? If you don't know what an isotope is or anything about dating a rock then don't answer. I've yet to ask a Christian that question and get one that even knew what I was talking about.

I'm a Geology major...don't give me a BS answer because I'll eat you alive.
There is no need to "explain it", if explaining it entails refuting it. I am not from an evangelical American protestant sect, and so, I don't adhere to the perverse "literalist" rape of Genesis that the six days are literal days, and the thousand years are literal thousand years, rather than idioms for signifying aeons, which I consider the hermeneutically and exegetically correct interpretation.
The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.
-G. K. Chesterton
RE: I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!
Ok, well I'm glad you understand the definition of atheism then Jon Tongue - sorry for misunderstanding you.

Now - my main problem with your arguments now, to sum it up...is that my problem is definitely with this notion of subjective views=all views are equal.

Now, to each person they are, because it's subjective in that sense.

But that doesn't mean that some things aren't more evident than others. Objective truth still exists on the outside, in the real world...stuff either is or isn't, things either do or don't exist....discovering whether they exist or not is ultimately through a very strong ultimately subjective consensus yes - but on the whole it's said to be objective. It doesn't have to be absolute because there is a difference between 'objective' and 'absolute', these words are not identical. There are degrees of 'objectivity' - not the case with 'absolute'. So this 'strong conseusus' is ultimately subjective because no one is perfect, and even the best science around can still be wrong. But it's not as though none of this counts just because people can disagree with their own subjectivity!!

EvF
RE: I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!
(August 10, 2009 at 7:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Now - my main problem with your arguments now, to sum it up...is that my problem is definitely with this notion of subjective views=all views are equal.
I have already addressed subjectivism and why it is self-defeating and incoherent. I will reiterate the quite extensive posts I've already written about it.






(August 10, 2009 at 7:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Objective truth still exists on the outside, in the real world
It exactly does not, since that very sentence and the meaning behind exists only in a subjective mind. With no intelligence outside subjective minds, there can be no objective truth outside objective minds either, as the truth of a proposition itself and the contradistinction between that and falsehood is originated, embodied and comprehensible only to intelligence. If intelligent mind, then, is not the origin of reality either, then that logical order is so much less an integral part of reality, and so much more the result of brain chemistry.
(August 10, 2009 at 7:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: ..stuff either is or isn't, things either do or don't exist....
The law of noncontradiction/the excluded middle again. I've dealt with this in the very above post.
(August 10, 2009 at 7:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: There are degrees of 'objectivity'
There can only be degrees of objectivity, if there is an outside actual objective standard of truth, it self distinguished from subjective viewpoints (since contradistinguishing subjective viewpoints with a subjective viewpoint does not lead to any degree of objectivity) with which to contradistinguish different subjective viewpoints to compare the degree of that objectivity present in them. I've already dealt with this and given many examples of what I mean in the above posts.
(August 10, 2009 at 7:47 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: So this 'strong conseusus' is ultimately subjective because no one is perfect, and even the best science around can still be wrong.
No, he cannot go wrong if there is not an objective truth which which to contradistinguish going wrong from going right. If it is just subjective, then he can never go wrong, since that would depend strictly on him subjectively defining himself to be wrong, and if that was the case, he would no longer maintain that position. So long as there is no outside truth, independent from what is thought to be so by subjective minds, then there is only the inside truth.

You also fail to see that subjectively defining subjective truth as the consensus of all subjective minds would imply the truth of many things you obviously consider falsities, like the flatness of the earth, or that something else than atheism is true, that some God is real. So you would of course, subjectively define this subjective consensus subjectively selectively, as some limited circle of subjects (scientists, most likely), and then we have another subjective limitation on what subjective minds get to define subjective truth for you, and it is still only true insofar as you have defined it to be so, like someone defining 2+2=5 to be true, not true because it is actually true independently of what you define.
The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all.
-G. K. Chesterton
RE: I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!
(August 10, 2009 at 8:23 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: It exactly does not, since that very sentence and the meaning behind exists only in a subjective mind.

Whether stuff is subjective or not. We know from obvious sane experience that either something exists or it doesn't. And there can be stong evidence for whether something doe sor does not.

Quote:With no intelligence outside subjective minds, there can be no objective truth outside objective minds either,
That's going by 'objective has to be absolute' again. These are two different things. If everything is ultimately subjective then objectivity is 'merely' stuff like, strong scientifc consensus, etc.

Quote:If intelligent mind, then, is not the origin of reality either, then that logical order is so much less an integral part of reality, and so much more the result of brain chemistry.

Intelligent minds are the result of brain chemistry.

Quote:The law of noncontradiction/the excluded middle again. I've dealt with this in the very above post.

Yes, you are saying that if 'everything is subjective' then there is no objectivity so nothing is really true. But I am not arguing that, I am arguing that stuff either does or doesn't exist, but we all subjectivivly understand that with experience. We could believe that the above doesn't apply and either nothing exists or something can both exist and not exist, etc, etc. But that doesn't stop me from rationally believing it's insane.

I have learnt from experience like everyone else has. We can't transcend our own minds, we only know what we know. How could we do otherwise? So what? We understand and experience subjectivly, yes. So what?

To believe that stuff either does or doesn't exist, objectively is one thing. To claim to have absolute access to it is another. You would need evidence for that.

Quote:There can only be degrees of objectivity, if there is an outside actual objective standard of truth, it self distinguished from subjective viewpoints (since contradistinguishing subjective viewpoints with a subjective viewpoint does not lead to any degree of objectivity) with which to contradistinguish different subjective viewpoints to compare the degree of that objectivity present in them. I've already dealt with this and given many examples of what I mean in the above posts.

I don't see how the argument makes any sense. It seems entirely semantical.

People have different beliefs. So beliefs are a subjective matter. Some believe in objective truth, others don't. I believe that it is logical to believe that something, indeed, objectively - does or doesn't exist! And I require evidence to believe it does.

So where does subjectiity fall? You can say 'my view is no more valid than any one else's subjective viewpoint'...but wait, what does that even mean or imply? I beg to differ with my viewpoint Tongue

I believe with evidence because it is rational with my life experience on this planet ok? Yes it's my own - shocking! - experience on this planet. It's subjective. So what? I'm not going to be thinking for someone else...[b]literally[/i] in side their head! I'm not in their head! I can only do me. Obviously it's ultimately subjective, my experience, and what I believe. And one of the things I believe is, indeed - something either does or doesn't objectively exist. I consider this rational because of my own[i/] experience on [i]this planet. It's not going to be any one else's life that I'm living now is it?!

I don't see what your point even is. How does any of it apply to reality? Obviously my experience is subjective, it can't be otherwise. So my belief in whether truth is objective or subjective stems from that. There's no alternative to subjective because I am me.


Quote:No, he cannot go wrong if there is not an objective truth which which to contradistinguish going wrong from going right.
There never absolutely is one. Once again you use 'objective' as if it means exactly the same as 'absolute'. It seems as though you always use it that way.

Quote: and it is still only true insofar as you have defined it to be so, like someone defining 2+2=5 to be true, not true because it is actually true independently of what you define,

We cannot have access to absolute objective truth - you have only been defning objective truth in an absolute sense, which just doesn't exist in any way that has been demonstrated whatsoever, unlike subjectivity which is self-evident.

EvF
RE: I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!
If you aren't one of those creationist christians then I really have no questions for you. My questions are for those people who pretend we didn't evolve and that we were all made in seven days just a few thousand years ago.

As far as you being a christian...well that's your right and I don't care what religion anyone is. I can get along with anyone and I won't question your reasons as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on others by helping politicians create "moral" laws.
RE: I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!
(August 10, 2009 at 11:23 am)Jon Paul Wrote: Again, read through the read. What of, my arguments HAS been refuted? I have seen no refutation of A) the a posteriori argument from potentiality/contingency........

The Cosmological Argument. Correct? Or are you speaking of something else entirely?

Please reply without the word-salads. For example instead of something like "causes are ontically prior to their effects" Just say "causes bring about their effects". Really, no one is impressed with your impressive use of a thesaurus and a latin phrase book. [Image: yeltongue.gif]

If I propound an argument a contrario a posteriori, please don't repudiate a priori.
It's ab absurdo from ab irato.


Well, ok, not as an impressive use as yours, but you get the picture. It doesn't help the communication of your thoughts. And I want to know your thoughts on this cosmological argument. Not the thoughts of some long dead catholic dudes. 'k?
I used to tell a lot of religious jokes. Not any more, I'm a registered sects offender.
---------------
...the least christian thing a person can do is to become a christian. ~Chuck
---------------
NO MA'AM
[Image: attemptingtogiveadamnc.gif]



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How can a Christian reject part of the Bible and still call themselves a Christian? KUSA 371 100996 May 3, 2020 at 1:04 am
Last Post: Paleophyte
  Hello Atheists, Agnostic here, and I would love to ask you a question about NDEs Vaino-Eesti 33 7022 April 8, 2017 at 12:28 am
Last Post: Tokikot
  I am about to ask a serious but utterly reprehensible question Astonished 105 23345 March 23, 2017 at 10:23 am
Last Post: Harry Nevis
  Orthodox Christianity is Best Christianity! Annoyingbutnicetheist 30 8000 January 26, 2016 at 10:44 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  Theists ask me a question dyresand 34 9222 January 5, 2016 at 1:14 am
Last Post: God of Mr. Hanky
  Charlie Hebdo vs Russian Orthodox Church JesusHChrist 10 2846 January 26, 2015 at 1:26 pm
Last Post: Chad32
  Yet more christian logic: christian sues for not being given a job she refuses to do. Esquilax 21 8019 July 20, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Last Post: ThomM
  Question for Christian Ballbags here themonkeyman 64 19516 October 13, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Last Post: Waratah
Wink 40 awkward Questions To Ask A Christian Big Blue Sky 76 38832 July 27, 2013 at 6:02 pm
Last Post: fr0d0
  Relationships - Christian and non-Christian way Ciel_Rouge 6 6687 August 21, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Last Post: frankiej



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)