|
|
#21 |
|
FFR Veteran
|
I get what you are saying until you started on the foundation of Christianity.
What will I have problems explaining as literally true? Creation is one of the few examples I can understand your point of view. I mean creation to me is defiantly a grey area. Personally I black and white I can logically know that God literally created the universe. I have trouble trying to discern how much of Genesis is literal. However I do feel that the main point of Genesis is not lost to much on the literal meaning.
__________________
Orbb fan club. White text society. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | ||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
If you interpret that as an attack, then I submit that you do not understand your faith or the difference between the function of faith and the function of reason. If you see me calling creationism psuedoscience as an attack on religion, you really don't get it. The closest thing to an attack against religion was when I tried to point you to humanistic atheism. But I was being totally sincere. You seem to desire something out of religion but still want to adhere to logic and reason. That would allow you to do so and would also not leave you in a position such as this, trying to claim how reasoned your position is when the fact is that all that you argue for is based on a foundation of unverifiable faith. Build logic around it all you want, but it all starts with faith in the unverifiable. Quote:
__________________
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#23 | |
|
FFR Veteran
|
Quote:
How is trying to think about faith logically against religion? I think logic is incredibly important to religion. How can I fully engage in a relationship with a God that I do not logically understand? Dosn't a belief with logic behind it mean so much more then an empty belief? Obviously belief in a faith can not come purely from logic, but in no way do I believe that true faith should be illogical. My original topic of discussion was the idea that we are created with the ability to comprehend logic for a reason. I wanted to hear what you guys think of that notion. I am curious if you see the ability to discern logic as just evolutionary.
__________________
Orbb fan club. White text society. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
The problem is you can show almost nothing in the bible to be empirically true. The original Hebrew texts have been translated and re-translated numerous times, so to begin with it's hard to even identify what pieces of scripture could be considered the word of God and which are man made manipulations. Not all of the original Hebrew is understood to begin with. Also, there is no way to differentiate between which parts of the bible are allegorical and which parts are literal. The only way you'd be able to demonstrate anything would be to take a literal interpretation of the ENTIRE bible, but obviously you can't do that because you can empirically demonstrate numerous claims in the bible to be false, so if it were true it can't be literal. And thus begins the endless circle I described. The very reason people continue to debate this issue. There is no way of demonstrating Christianity to be correct and attempting to do so leads to problem after problem. That's not to say we can't continue to deepen our understanding of the universe around us, whether it be through an entirely scientific perspective or a theological one. I know for me personally, it is the understanding of the universe and the truth it contains that is important to me, not which criteria this truth happens to meet.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 | ||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#26 | ||
|
FFR Veteran
|
Quote:
As for the old testament original texts I know not all that much. The new testament though is incredibly hard to refute from an authenticity of sources point of view and is incredibly easy to understand. Quote:
The only real problem I can see is where the Bible claims an empirically measurable fact as a belief and is wrong. I mean the bible describes the Earth as flat, but it in no way was claiming to be correct about it, it is just a consequence of it being written in a certain context.
__________________
Orbb fan club. White text society. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#27 | ||
|
FFR Veteran
|
A higher being can meet a lower being where they are. Im talking about a lower being having the capacity to have far better relationship with logic then without.
Quote:
Quote:
Also if our logic is accidental how can we believe what we obtain from the logic to be true? Therefore a belief in accidental logic is illogical.
__________________
Orbb fan club. White text society. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,023
|
"Why do we as humans find such a joy and beauty in logic? Can we really ride it off as purely evolutionary? As purely survivalist?
I obviously believe that this side of our being is a gift from God, I believe that we are given an ability to understand so that we can appreciate and take awe in the awesomeness in our creator. How can one with out the ability to think enjoy? How can one with out the ability to think praise and love?" Sure, I can ride it off as evolutionary, why not? I like logic because it's another form of problemsolving, to me, that aims to unveil truth and understanding about various things in our world. You need to be careful though when it comes to proofs, since it's easy to fall into the trap of using assumptions we don't necessarily know to be valid/true/sound/whatever. I'll just add though that just because we are able to think/appreciate/understand/enjoy things, it does not mean it had a purpose or that it was with the intention of "seeing the awesomeness of our creator." I can just as easily argue that they're all the results of physical/evolutionary processes and necessary conditions, and with plenty of evidence. Be waaaryyyy of the loooggggiiiccc Last edited by MrRubix; 07-6-2009 at 02:00 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
FFR Veteran
|
Rubix, I put the question out there and a potential answer. I never said I was right. Im wanting to see your "arguments that they're all the results of physical/evolutionary processes and necessary conditions, and with plenty of evidence."
It honestly dosn't strike anyone that as far as we empirically know we are the only ones in the universe who have a sense of beuaty? We are the only ones who find delight in pondering about how our universe works? Where we came from and why? Making fun of Creationists....errr, opps. Does anyone want to show me how pretty paintings have helped our survival?
__________________
Orbb fan club. White text society. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The 10th Dimension
Posts: 852
|
@OP: Because being logical is better than being illogical. There's really no critical thinking involved here...
__________________
Reverse for life!
![]() ![]() ^Way better than 25thhour's link. You know you want to sign up. The best noteskin ever: Skittles Are you having trouble syncing your files? Use DDReamStudio. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,023
|
You're looking too much into end-case specifics and disregarding them as purely survival and therefore unreasonable. Anything can be argued or broken down into evolutionary subcomponents from what I can tell. There can still be advantageous OR adverse side functions to a given evolutionary trait, and as long as they don't have any direct impact on the evolutionary process itself, there's no reason for them to change. In this case, an appreciation for art.
For example, why do humans sense beauty in the first place? What things tend to be beautiful, and what things tend to make us turn away? I would argue that it could be entirely linked to evolution. We tend to see beauty in vitality, in good health, happiness, etc. We can look at a lush forest and see "beauty" because we know that such forests are full of life and good health. Good for survival? Of course. We see "beauty" in certain humans when they appear to be "prettier," where "pretty" tends to be a combination of things that indicate the presence of genetically-favorable, healthier traits. Survival trait? Sure. We see "beauty" in problem-solving when we gain understanding of things around us, which can be a function of evolution, as intelligent beings are better equipped to survive than non-intelligent beings given a certain environment (as is the case in all evolution). Survival trait? Yes. So we can derive this notion of "beauty" from many evolutionary factors, since we tend to find favorable notions beautiful and unfavorable notions not as beautiful or even ugly by comparison. So, we have these preferences/affinities/inclinations for various things, and art can be seen as an "outlet." It's not strictly the notion that "we evolved to like pretty paintings which helped us survive," but rather that the paintings are pretty because we've evolved to find certain attributes beautiful, and a painting is a good way for us to relay that beauty. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,023
|
Blah I want to edit that post to improve the eloquence but I tend to get lazy and type things very stream-of-consciousness style without really caring about how I've structured it. I hope you understand what points I'm trying to relay, here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
FFR Veteran
|
Yeap, I can completely agree with that. While it dosn't disprove a higher cause for beauty it certain weakens its argument for it.
Damn it, im trying to find some form of a counter example where a sense of beuaty dosn't help survival. Perhaps the beauty of contemplating the vastness of the universe isn't really survivalist. I guess even inner beauty can be seen as a genetically favorable. I might sleep on this one and see if I can help myself out here. The best argument I can see here is that if beauty is a form of survival then it will point back to the one who created survival. It feels like a pretty secondary argument though. Edit: haha, MUSIC! what is survivalist about music? Does music really lead itself to the wanting of desirable evolutionary traits?
__________________
Orbb fan club. White text society. Last edited by windsurfer-sp; 07-6-2009 at 02:45 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,023
|
"God" is something we can't disprove, especially when most people use "God" as something to explain what we don't know. Unless we somehow knew everything there is to know about our universe/origin/etc, there will always be this notion of a "God" that could "potentially be behind everything." But, like Reach said, what exactly, then, are you calling "God," and why even call it that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 | |||
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
For example, there is no 'a priori' way of knowing if the bible was being literal about the Earth being flat. The only way to see whether or not this is true is to...well, figure out if the Earth is flat or not. Of course it isn't, so then it becomes IN HINDSIGHT glaringly obvious that it was written in the bible as a reflection of the times, in context etc. However, prior to this knowledge you have no sound way of demonstrating which parts can be taken seriously and which ones cannot. You can say what you want about the intent of the author, and this is true to some extent, but it doesn't change what I just said on a more general level. There is still no way to demonstrate anything faith based in this context. Also, since you bring up the New Testament and describe it as easily understood (Which is, I suppose true compared to the OT), I present to you these passages: James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Matthew 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. And again in the OT: Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. So, how do you deal with passages like these? It's quite clear they lead to numerous contradictions, which bring us back to exactly the points I was trying to make - Religion is a system that is set up such that you cannot demonstrate it is true nor falsify it. Quote:
You're taking something very complex and offering, what appears to be a simplistic explanation for it that you do understand because you personally cannot find any other explanations as to why this could be. If you study evolutionary psychology you will find numerous examples of things that are byproducts or consequences of other developments, and thus they help our survival in an indirect way. This would be one of them, stemming primarily from cultural development. I could write an entire essay on this, but I won't. I suggest you research it on your own. However, appreciation of beauty and the appearance of beauty stems from both our genes and cultural development, and their intricate interactions from the time we are born. Our genes prime us to find certain things attractive, and our cultures shape and transform this into its ultimate form. If you want to know where these innate predispositions come from and the development of our culture, you'll want to look towards evolutionary psychology. Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 07-6-2009 at 02:53 PM.. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#36 | |
|
FFR Veteran
|
Reach how do those scriptures contradict? Call me slow but I have read them before and I feel as if I understand there meanings fairly well but I hardly see the contradiction...
As for the evolutionary psychology I defiantly can see how that would work. Rubix sort of touched on it but I can see there is even more to it. Quote:
I can see what you are saying. [Generic statement without a given basis] But logically looking through some of the evidence for and against the major religions of the world and Christianity certainly stands up to the test. [/] But religion will never be agreed on by logic alone.
__________________
Orbb fan club. White text society. Last edited by windsurfer-sp; 07-6-2009 at 03:01 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 | |
|
Everybody gets one.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Fuckin space bro
Posts: 1,003
|
Quote:
At one point, human's discovered ways to communicate with each other. At the time, language probably helped with creating strategies for hunting and whatnot. As time goes by, Ben Franklin discovers electricity and through the "magic" of language, he informs us what, why, and how to use this awesome discovery. Nowadays, every time a human discovers something, it is immediately sent through the earth's proverbial circulatory system of human brains, and through the many discoveries and inventions of man, we have evolved into a species where as long as one human learns something, all humans learn it. When a baby is born in the year 2010, he will be born into a world that contains all the knowledge that has ever been developed by any person that was born before him. I'll try to be the only one to use this thread the way you wanted it to be used, rather than go off on how illogical many of your beliefs are, even though that is what I believe. I will say this one thing though: how is it logical to understand that "God always was" and not think beyond that? It's logical to say the Big Bang couldn't have happened on its own, because there is always a catalyst for everything; however you read that God has always existed, therefore he's an exception... I need a little help with that one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | |
|
FFR Veteran
|
Quote:
Edit: 3am and sleepy time. Thanks for the discussion all, I will look forward to picking it up tomorrow.
__________________
Orbb fan club. White text society. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 | |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
The contradiction ties into what I was saying earlier. All of these passages are claiming that, aside from the bible being the word of God, it is his literal word from which all must be followed (with nothing added or subtracted from it, from Deuteronomy). If these passages are not true then they are direct contradictions (since they claim everything in the bible is the true word of God which must be followed). So, are these passages true? How could they possibly be literally true after what I just discussed? How could these passages possibly be true if there are things in the bible that are demonstratively false? Further, how can these passages be true if we cannot properly discern PRIOR TO having more knowledge on the matter which passages are literal and which passages are allegory? Thus they become direct contradictions, and the problem of internal consistency arises. My point comes up again - where is the consistency and continuity between allegory and literal meaning within the bible? There is no empirical way to find it, and thus no empirical way to ever 'prove' Christianity as objectively the moral foundation of our universe. I don't want to continue to get into this, since it falls into the category of religion, which as you stated, wasn't the initial intent of the thread. I suggest you continue your search for the answers to the biggest questions the universe posses to us...why are we here, how did it all originate, etc. However, you might want to leave Christianity as your rubric aside for the moment, unless you want to get lost in the logical tangle forever.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 | |||
|
Everybody gets one.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Fuckin space bro
Posts: 1,003
|
Quote:
Indeed those statements would have some sort of logic, but that is Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Flaming_Dingleberry; 07-6-2009 at 04:10 PM.. |
|||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|