 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)belb ...and 283 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613461 Today 4 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What I am trying to say is, there's no reason to throw out the contentions of Theology, specifically Messianic Judaism, just because you're not willing to delve into it further. I just think sometimes people get caught up in the heat of the debate, and leave out so much. Einstein's position on God and religion is really humble and fair. Like him and many other independant thinkers, I think it's unwise to reject a claim, on the basis of a dissatifaction with the poor understanding of a culture, language and doctrine. Also, just something to throw out there to get your opinion on, what's your opinion on miracles? Fulfillment of Prophecy? Archaelogical evidence for the events and locations written of in the Scriptures? Near Death testimonies? Secondary Causality in Genesis? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
theology is nothing more than shit fantasy. theology consists of answering the questions raised by a holy book's incogerences and contradictions. have you read the OT? it should suffice to reject the whole bunch of abrahamic religions for if their god is true, it is an evil god indeed. but it can't be true because the book contradicts itself all the time. a religion is a political system created by someone who understood that manipulating people through their fears and superstition is extremely powerful. that's how moses and aaron raised an army to invade territories (according to the book - and israel is just the continuing of it). same for mohamed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Also, just something to throw out there to get your opinion on, what's your opinion on miracles? something that science cannot explain is not necessarily the work of god, because god doesn't sign anything. if he put the clouds in a shape of a text everyday, saying smart stuff, predictions and what not i might start to believe. until now i've only heard men talking about god, i haven't heard god himself. Fulfillment of Prophecy? i haven't heard about that. tell me more. (keep in mind that if i say "it's gonna rain" and then it rains, it doesn't mean i'm a god or a prophet ok?) Archaelogical evidence for the events and locations written of in the Scriptures? that's because moses really was a sick fuck and really raised that army to really conquer territories? Near Death testimonies? tell me more Secondary Causality in Genesis? tell me more. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Please show me a single verse in context in the OT which shows God as being unjust. Alot of what you said in your first post can be applied to the people and groups throughout history who are the ones who distorted the original doctrine of Judaism/Christianity. You do know that under the banner of Christianiy and Judaism there are multiple sects and demoninations correct? Is it safe to assume that not everybody actually represents with 100% clarity the principles of what they claim to be their religion? I really don't need to go much further into that. (Hence when Christ is quoted as saying "There will be many who come in my name but will decieve many" Also the Allah God of the Islamic religion is vastly different than the God of Y'srael. Some great apologetics out there on this topic. I can't really prepare a whole case against it right now. for a good explanation on biblical prophecy fulfillment, read Dr. Michael Brown's book series called: Answering Jewish Objections To Jesus. It goes into the Messianic prophecies. But a simple google/search will suffice you on other prophecies. Near Death testimonies: . Secondary Causality: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
On that video i posted under Near Death Testimonies, you should jump to video 4 in the series, the first 3 parts are just describing Hell and Satan. I apologzie for the cheeziness that the History channel implements in their sound tracks etc. But i chose this series because of alot of the credible Near Death testimonies are in it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Also Isaiah has a lot of prophecies that are plainly messianic and speaking of Jesus (Yahshua), such as Isaiah 53. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Near death experiences as such do not exist, you are either death or you are not. Miracles didn't happen either, says the catholic Theologican Hans Küng. So, tho theology is not a science, i am willing to explore it further. But i am not going to believe anything. And Einstein was an Atheist, sorry: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, euthyphro. i guess you want me to read it, because i said christianity can account for morality and according to the euthyphro a divine entity can't be the source of morality. i'd spell it out this way: judging that "God is good" already presupposes a moral standard against which we measure God's goodness, therefore God can't be the source of goodness and therefore God can't account for morality. but if we look at Plato's other texts it becomes clear how to solve this problem. God is not like a person, who has the quality of being good and could possibly be evil, but God equals goodness. In other words: God = morality. Saying that God is good is therefore equal to saying "The good is good". The problem that human beings already have a standard according to which they measure God's goodness, therefore doesn't appear. It simply means that they have a standard of morality/goodness/justice. Plato accounts for that standard of course by positing the Ideal Realm of Platonic Forms. In this "Platonic heaven" there is the Form of the Good. The human soul "views" this Form of the Good and therefore understands what morality/justice/goodness is. Since Plato's Form of the Good is arguably his equivalent to the Christian God assessing that God is good simply means that "The good = the good" in the same sense in which I affirm "The computer I'm typing into now = the computer I'm typing into now." Of course the question can be raised, if there's a good reason to adopt such an, as it seems unnecessarily exessive way of accounting for morality. Why not simply rest with affirming that there's a phenomenon in human life we call morality? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
however, i didn't claim that Platonism or [stripped down] Christianity are the only ways of accounting for morality, but that they're internally basically coherent ways of doing so. the quesiton whether a worldview is internally coherent and whether it should be held as true are different questions. --- i didn't claim that you claimed the material world and mathematics have the same structure, but that the hotel paradox mentioned by larn presupposes that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"God equals goodness" "good is good" I am sorry, but why do we need the word God than? It than becomes is completly unnecessary and does not explain anything. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And also a quality can't exist without a substance that carries it. Quality + Substance = Thing. There are also relational qualities like, loudness, taste, justice, goodness etc. which require an observer. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I didn't mean to come off as stating Einstein's established position on God, moreso I was paraphrasing something he actually said about coming from the stance of agnosticism, regardless if it preceded his declaration of Atheism. Also, so what if he died an atheist? What's the point? Isn't it fair to say that maybe if he were alive one more day, he might have stumbled across something that drove him to be a Theist? And would that really change the status of the existence of a Creator or not? No, all knowledge is gained through experience and some people die before they get further along the process. Science is just what it implies, knowledge due to observation. So if one doesn't experience an event personally that changes their view as to whether or not God reveals Himself to people, then one can't truly falsify the argument. And yes I agree with Hans Kung's view on miracles to a degree. Miracles, or exponentially unprobable events, for lack of a better word, can be expained scientifically, and a book on this very topic is called, The Physics of Christianity - by Frank J. Tipler. I'd like you to explain how near death experiences somehow implies that the person actually died and stayed that way? Obviously they lived to tell about the experience, hence the phrase, NEAR death experience. Also I don't remember who said it, a doctor or physician said something like, "It's pretty clear that the near death experience is the dying experience in most cases." And i do know people personally who have flat-lined for more than a few minutes and they haven't experienced anything, so it's not universal. and guess what, the bible supports both the NDE and the experience with no interactivity. NDE: 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 Death without sensory activity: Ecclesiastes 9:5 and many more |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Also more on Einstein's letter: I really feel he was another victim of a lacking understanding of the theology. First, the Jewish people were not chosen because of their intellectual faculties or physical attributes, as if implying God chose people because they were of a higher quality than others. They were chosen out of all the nations to bear the words and statutes of God, and to be a light to the nations. That was the covenant that was made. And the Jews overall broke that covenant which is why they had curses, plagues, etc. Alot of "Jewish" people don't truly understand that concept. Simply because in most cases, they don't read the Scriptures to understand any of the doctrine, only to 'disprove' it. I agree with him that the word 'God' doesn't really attribute much to the Diety of the Old Testament. Though it is valid because it implies a creator. and he's right on point that the original language of the Hebrews is what needs to be re-evaluated in order to get a proper understanding of the theology. I think this re-evaluation would have countered his view of it all being superstitious and a fairy-tale. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and about your position on believing or not, the original meaning of belief is a western idea. Belief is not blind reasoning, it is a conviction to the Truth of something. Do you know what Amen means? It has several meanings, one of them being, "I Trust" or "Yes, it is true" Now why would a people who, according to atheists, are so childish in their thinking and lacking of rational ideologies, need to make pledges of their trust or faith in something? Wouldn't it make more sense if they just declared it to be truth without questioning it at all, because they were so dumb? No the fact is that even they were not convinced 100% and they needed to speak it to verify their position. There's power in words and in the case of the God of the Jews, He seeks that verification. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Please show me a single verse in context in the OT which shows God as being unjust. Genesis 6.7, Numbers 21.4 to 21.6 one of my favourites: God is indeed evil. I suggest everybody to read these verses. The so-called merciful, loving god! Hence when Christ is quoted as saying "There will be many who come in my name but will decieve many" He knew many guys would have the same idea. The OT also says there will be NO update, which discarded the NT and the Quran even before they were written. I don't have time to watch the viddies but i saved the topic so i'll come back later. By the way have you got any idea why Jews don't kill their cheating wives or their disobedient teens, God told them so! Or why Christians eat pork? Did Jesus come and say "Wait, Daddy double checked and actually pork is okay!" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
First let's look at your first statement: Genesis 6.7, Numbers 21.4 to 21.6 one of my favourites: Dt 13.13 to 13.17 God is indeed evil. I suggest everybody to read these verses. The so-called merciful, loving god! Wait, are you saying God exists now? Anyway, God is not the author of disorder, man is. Remember this is pre-flood, so men were closer in terms of their relationship to God, so they were held more accountable, because they knew that God existed. So if you were to create a computer program with characters and those characters had the free will of doing wrong or right, knowing that the characters heard what you said and they still did wrong things or maybe even tried to harm the program itself, you're saying you wouldn't delete the certain harmful characters for the benefit of the entire program? I don't think you're considering this from the correct vantage point here. your second statement, He knew many guys would have the same idea. The OT also says there will be NO update, which discarded the NT and the Quran even before they were written. You're completely wrong here, the OT does infact mention a renewed covenant with Israel and all the nations, here: Jeremiah 31:31-34 Joel 2:25-32 - Joel 3:1-2 The Quran is can of worms that I'm not prepared to open because i'm not rooted in the apologetics of it concerning Christianity/Judaism. But I can provide links to videos which do explain why it's immoral in regard to the laws of the OT among other things. By the way have you got any idea why Jews don't kill their cheating wives...etc This is very fundamental in terms of Christian apologetics and i'm surprised you don't know the reasoning behind it. Jesus never claimed to abolish the laws, any of them. In fact he raised the standards of righteousness. Sinners are not only responsible for acting sin out, but for thinking it. Which is to let people understand that nobody is righteous in regard to the Torah. Jesus was the only person who succe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
-successfully obeyed the Mosaic laws. Beforeand after the Roman persecution and the fall of the second temple of Israel in the year 70, there was no government in which the Israelites could by law stone anyone for sin, because they weren't a self-governing nation, at the time of Jesus, they couldn't legally persecute or stone anyone for breaking the Mosaic laws, which is why they went to the Roman procurator, Pilate. When the actual nation of Israel is established when the Messiah returns, the laws will be re-established. However at that time, people's nature will be good, and the Torah will be written on all of mankind's inward parts and hearts - as it says in Jeremiah 31:31-34, the OT. And Jesus never once told people that sin was okay or it was excusable. What he did, by being crucified, was provide atonement for the world for their sins, so that people don't have to be put to death for their transgression of the laws. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Alot of "Jewish" people don't truly understand that concept. Simply because in most cases, they don't read the Scriptures to understand any of the doctrine, only to 'disprove' it. I meant - Alot of atheists don't truly understand that concept. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Wait, are you saying God exists now? Anyway, God is not the author of disorder, man is. Remember this is pre-flood, so men were closer in terms of their relationship to God, so they were held more accountable, because they knew that God existed. So you know how it was before the flood. Did you personnally meet these people? What are you talking about? So if you were to create a computer program with characters and those characters had the free will of doing wrong or right, knowing that the characters heard what you said and they still did wrong things or maybe even tried to harm the program itself, you're saying you wouldn't delete the certain harmful characters for the benefit of the entire program? I would realize how much I suck at programming and make music instead, rather than blaming the program I created, and therefore am responsible for. On a more serious note, we are not talking about a computer program, but people, and not "certain harmful characters" but the whole bunch of animals leaving on Earth. Does that mean that cows or cats can tell the difference between good and evil too? You're completely wrong here, the OT does infact mention a renewed covenant with Israel and all the nations, here: Jeremiah 31:31-34 Joel 2:25-32 - Joel 3:1-2 The OT still says there will be no update, I forgot where but it's in one of the first 5 books. More precisely it says the rules for Israel are set forever. But it's not a surprise since in the first 2 chapters of the Bible contradict themselves. What he did, by being crucified, was provide atonement for the world for their sins, so that people don't have to be put to death for their transgression of the laws. So it's okay to eat pork thanks to Jesus? they don't read the Scriptures to understand any of the doctrine, only to 'disprove' it In case you're assuming it's my case, I started reading it I was not an atheist. The Bible made me an atheist. I did sincerely ask myself |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the question "Can this be any true?" And what I found most plausible is that some Levite invented the whole story in order to get the best food, the best house and so on, which is a very common story that humanity has known thousands of times, everywhere in the world. Do you believe the Earth is 6000 yo as well? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
LOL I had forgotten the verses 6 to 11, the whole 13th chapter is a gem! "6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. " Religion of fear and ignorance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's a bit hard to defend the entire bible on a messageboard, and I'm still learning myself. However I do find it quite arrogant of you to think you would know even the reasons for the Creator's decision on what He does with His creation. And the computer program thing was a stupid metaphor that was an attempt to maybe shed some light on the fact that we thnk we know better than what God did in those times, but we really don't. Isaish 55:7-9 No it's not Okay to eat pork. but Thanks to Jesus, He won't judge you for it. Because he came to save what was lost, not to condemn or judge. - John 12:47 So you see I've answered some of your questions and wrong interpretations, so maybe now you just might be able to see that you may be in error here. And just because I can't answer all of your questions fully, doens't mean someone else can't, if you put the effort in understanding it, instead of trying to make the Bible explain itself magically. remember those youtube channels i posted and look at those videos sometime, you won't be disappointed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the Earth being 6000 years old is certainly possible, but not scientifically accurate. I'm under the suspicion that it was a trnaslation/grammatical issue in the text. Some parts in Genesis ring true to science, while others don't at all. So either it's a translation/grammar issue, or the Bible wasn't meant to be a scientific dissertation. However here are some various ideas as to what the text is saying in Genesis: 13th century Rabbi Isaac of Acco says universe is 15 billion years old: ] Also, Nahmanides, another Rabbi around the same time, fathered the Big Bang theory. Genesis DOES support secondary causality, as i posted before. basically, evolution is the work of God. Genesis 1:11 - Then God said, "LET THE EARTH produce vegetation: plants bearing seeds, each according to its own type, and fruit trees bearing fruit with seeds, each according to its own type." And so it was. Genesis 1:27 - Then God said, "LET THE EARTH produce every type of living creature: every type of domestic animal, crawling animal, and wild animal." And so it was. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What proper understanding of theology? If god resides in some supranaturalistic realm, we have no way to verify or falsify any claims the bible makes, thus there is no way to mis/understand the bible or god, the 'right' way. It all suddenly becomes a metaphor. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry, the last verse was Genesis 1:24 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What proper understanding of theology? If god resides in some supranaturalistic realm, we have no way to verify or falsify any claims the bible makes, thus there is no way to mis/understand the bible or god, the 'right' way. It all suddenly becomes a metaphor. Didn't you see what I typed after I said Einstein seemed lacking in a proper understanding of the theology? It was his views about Jews being the chosen people, not about the argument of whether God exists or not. The rest of what you said is non-sequitur |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
forgive me, actually i should have used the word, doctrine, not theology, i didnt mean that he lacked a proper understanding of the premise of a theology, i meant he didn't properly understand the contentions of the specific Abrahamic doctrine of Judaism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Gah, |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't care what Einstein thought about the jews or god. The point is that there is nowhere a supranatural entity to be found in the realativity theory. Which means that a supranaturalistic (idealistic or religious) and a naturalistic and realistic ontology can not be combined. Science and religion contradict each other on a metaphysical level. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my reply was to the specific problem of the euthyphro. for the solution of this problem it is important to understand that "god = goodness" and that human beings only have a grasp of what goodness is insofar as they "partake in the form of goodness" which means: insofar as their souls view the form of goodness/God. however, a full account of God is not given by asserting that God is equal to goodness. God is also the condition on which all other things (such as human beings, animals, tables) depend. God = goodness = the condition on which all further things depend. The words "God", "goodness", "the condition on which all things depend" don't have the same content. God = goodness of course isn't an analytical truth such as "All bachelors = all unmarried men". What is expressed is that that which is responsible for human beings feeling the force of a moral imperative in their life is the very same thing that is the condition of everything else in the world. For the problem of the euthyphro, however, it is important that on a Platonic view there's no having a concept of justice/morality/goodness without the soul's viewing the Form of the Good. nevertheless, the full characterization of God is wider, thus there's sense to use the word "God" for "goodness" and not limit oneself to the use of "goodness". now, Plato's theory of forms might very well be false, but it not a pseudo-explanation. it explains the existence of morality by positing an eternal, abstract Form of the Good which human souls mentally look at. the important thing it asserts about morality is that our intuitive concept of morality reflects an object (God), which exists independently of human beings. therefore our intuitions about morality can't be illusory. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
[If evolution theory as it was taught to me in my abitur leistungskurs would give an exhaustive account of the human being our moral concepts would be illusory. Then there'd be no free will, because human actions would be the sole outcome of events that can be described using strict natural laws and the notion of altruism wouldn't make sense, because all "altruistic" phenomena would have to be re-interpreted as the effects of mechanisms which have the function of passing on genes. in general: there could be no purposes - only fuctions - because natural science only *describes*] it would be madness/stupid to deny the evolution theory, but it's not at all clear that it gives an exhaustive account of the world and is not compatible with, for istance, Platonic theories. [see for instance Charles Taylor's current book A Secular Age / Ein säkulares Zeitalter.] (one can claim that Platonic/Christian theories are driven by wishful thinking. they might be, but they need not be. one can be skeptic and entertain that is possible that life is really as rosy as it seems during feverish childhood-phantasies.) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
on the side. speaking of the bible's ban on eating certain foods. i was living in the united states for a short while and sharing a flat with many people. among them was a brazilian guy, who didn't eat fish, because of the bible. anyway. i was a sharing a bathroom with this guy. after a while he started fucking the blonde female flatmate. and at the same this happened he started throwing his used condoms in the waste basket AND (which he hadn't done before) he used to throw the toilet paper with which he wiped his ass in such a way in the waste basket that you would have to look right at his Shit; brown and slimy. it was disguisting. he did that permanently. very disturbung person. it was as if he wanted to say: "Look at my used condoms; look at my shit, I'm an animal!" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm under the suspicion that it was a trnaslation/grammatical issue in the text. Some parts in Genesis ring true to science, while others don't at all. So either it's a translation/grammar issue, or the Bible wasn't meant to be a scientific dissertation. ok, so if there are translation issues, what is the value of it all? it is surprising that god himself does not have the means to make his message intelligible. you just never thought that there could be no god and that all these books could have been written by men? there is no flaw in that theory, it's nothing incredible and it explains all the assumed "translation issues". widen the spectrum of your thought. the book could be the work of man. once you accept that, the whole story makes much more sense. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Nope. I'll never take that position, sorry. Most translations aren't that incorrect, it's just the English language is so inferior and different from the Hebrew language, culture and grammar. For every English word, there's about upwards of 10 possible Hebrew words. It is written in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" I would also look how one of the last verses of the common bible, in The book of Revelation, says: Revelation 22:18-19 - "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." and also, Deuteronomy 4:2 Proverbs 30:5-6 2 Peter 1:20-21 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Did it ever occur to you that most all of the so called 'Chrisitans' you see in mega-churches and the ones who evangelize the watered down and corrupted KJV bible are the are the people that Paul refers to in - II Corinthians 11:3-4 II Thessalonians 2:9-12: And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Galatians 1:6 - I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of the Messiah and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Messiah. and why do they do this? 2 Thessalonians 2:7 - For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. Most people aren't reading their bibles. and so, they aren't really 'Christians' at all. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
WTF I praise the lard |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
shit on lord piss and wank |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I will do raid with bazooka ("visiting churches"). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
which position? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you just never thought that there could be no god and that all these books could have been written by men? there is no flaw in that theory I meant, that those thoughts cross my mind, but that position of - throwing away something because i'm not instantly satisfied with the little information i'm given - is not something I want to assume. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I've found a miracle you have to know about : |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is just nonesense. Do you know what a tautology is? And why do all things depend on 'god' whoever that is? Can you prove this? Does 'god' whoever that is even exist? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Can God make a tautology false? Not WILL he, but CAN he? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course you can't prove that god exists. you can't talk about the condition of the world (=god) in the same way in which you talk about things within the world. this is very clear when you look at how proof works in an everyday-environment. i can prove that i'm german by showing my passport, i/you can prove that moscow is the russian capital by referring you to google maps, i/you can prove that fresh meat will decay at some point in time executing a simple empirical investigation. the structure is: one proves one statement by referring to something else, that is held as more basic. but of course you can't prove the ultimate condition of the world by refering to something that is more basic than it. so it's clear that any meaningful talk about god can't be about how we prove god's existence. maybe the best one can hope for is coherence. maybe you can be more precise about why my defence of plato is non-sense and what - according to you - the criteria of sense are? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
for the fun of it i'll cite heidegger (he's talking about plato's allegory of the cave, which also deals with the form of the good [Plato's analogon to the christian god]. "Die Darstellung eines Gleichnisses, eines Sinnbildes, ist also nichts anderes als ein sehen-lassendes Winken (einen Wink geben durch das, was unmittelbar anschaulich vorgeführt wird). Dieses anschaulich bildgebende Winken führt uns - zu jenem hin, was das bloße Beschreiben, und wäre es noch so getreu, was auch das ungebundene Beweisen, und wäre es noch so streng und schlüssig, nie zu fassen bekommen. Es hat daher seine innere Notwendigkeit, wenn Platon jeweils da, wo er in der Philosophie etwas Letztes und Wesentliches sagen will, im Gleichnis spricht und uns vor ein Sinn-Bild stellt. Nicht daß er noch sich im unklaren gewesen wäre über die Sache, sondern überklar darüber, daß sie nicht beschreibbar und beweisbar ist. Es gibt etwas in aller echten Philosophie, demgegenüber alles Beschreiben und Beweisen versagt und zu leeren Beschäftigungen herabsinkt, und wäre es noch so glänzende Wissenschaft." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I can do that too, Now when you want to really converse about that topic, let me know. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No Just wanted to let you know that hell doesnt exist |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and its a FACT btw |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you don't exist. ITS A FACT durrr |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
