what do you mean by define God with science? and Fathom God with our senses?
~Gabe
Gabriel, it sounds to me like you're a logical, straightforward person. I would consider myself the same way, as I'm actually studying math and logic is one of my strong suits. But when it comes time to consider God, all of that goes out the window. There is no if-then for God, there is no cause-effect for God, there is no way to empirically measure God. Logic applied to God yields failed logic.
Take for example a story regarding your namesake, Archangel Gabriel, the Announcer. St. Mary tried to use logic when he announced to her the good news - but it didn't work. So she accepted that God is outside of logic, and we must do the same.
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=12639.msg148599#msg148599 date=1323232242] First and foremost, you are in no position to assert what will and what won't convince me that God exists (although I agree with you that it wont be the Bible, the Patristic writings, the clergy, and "basic logic"). I did not make any assertions on what will convince. You made the assertions and you just confirmed it in the second half of your sentence in parentheses.
Second, science doesn't just claim anything without some actual research and investigation, look up the scientific method if you have to.
Buddy, I'm a doctor. I know plenty about the scientific method. It is an art of interpretation based on peer review, hypotheses and reproducible experiments. It cannot prove the existence of God. "Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) [a conjecture]. It can only falsify [it]. This is what Einstein meant when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Source. All quotations below are from the same source.
Here's more information about the assumptions and philosophy of the scientific method. "There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world." Gabe, if you want to believe that humans have the capacity to perceive and rationalize an infinite being, it's your prerogative. But it is nonetheless an assumption you can't dismiss.
"Kuhn (1961) said the scientist generally has a theory in mind before designing and undertaking experiments so as to make empirical observations, and that the "route from theory to measurement can almost never be traveled backward". This implies that the way in which theory is tested is dictated by the nature of the theory itself, which led Kuhn (1961, p. 166) to argue that "once it has been adopted by a profession ... no theory is recognized to be testable by any quantitative tests that it has not already passed". In other words, since the Christian profession (ie, the Church) as well as a fairly large minority of the scientific community have adopted the existence of God, no theory that states God doesn't exist can be recognized as a quantitative test without passing all previous tests, philosophies and claims in favor of the existence of God. Your standard of evidence needs to address all previous claims and evidence for the existence of God before you can recognize it as useful.
In addition, you cannot use tangible, finite experiments to test the existence of an intangible, infinite being. They will not be reproducible, they will be solely subject to interpretation and therefore negate the efficacy of the scientific method. This is part of the utility function of the scientific method. "Utility Function - A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it. One of the elements of any scientific utility function is the refutability of the model. Another is its simplicity, on the Principle of Parsimony more commonly known as Occam's Razor." The onus, therefore, is on science to find an an intangible, infinite experiment to measure the usefulness of the scientific model to explain the existence of God. And an infinite experiment, by definition, cannot be reproducible. Therefore, the scientific method (and your alleged standard of evidence) cannot prove the existence of God.
Moreover, I never once mentioned anything about reconciling with Coptic Christianity I was referring to the Coptic culture/heritage, but i know how difficult it is for some people to separate the two.
The primary purpose of the Church is to bring souls to God. Secondary purposes include social gatherings and cultural interaction. If one wants to "reconcile with their heritage" or "learn more about what they came from" as you said before, they have a multitude of other sources that will not deal with theology such as libraries and university programs. If one truly wanted to "separate the two", you would use another source. Maybe, it's you who can't separate the two.
Btw not only does your last post not in anyway resemble an analysis, its also completely irrelevant and based on ignorance (see my response to your first post), hence no reply.
P.S If God couldn't convince me that HE exists, like you said he couldn't, I guess that makes him limited in a way, no? Or maybe since you know me enough to know that even in the face of some ultimate, objective, divine, revelation I would still deny His existence, since God knows and so do you apparently, that I am an intellectually dishonest individual who doesn't actually want to believe in God, because all I want to do is bask in my homosexual lifestyle and sins. I'd ask how you knew that but I'm sure I can just take your word for it.
In your post #29, you asked a hypothetical question about attending a mosque or synagogue without ulterior motives. I answered in post #34 about that it would be considered ulterior motives. In turn, to elucidate my response I asked you a hypothetical question about entering a homosexual bar after you satisfied curiosity. Instead of responding, you attacked me and said "My reasoning is flawed" and now you accuse me of calling you dishonest and homosexual. Now I see why your impeccable standard of evidence is so superior to my flawed reasoning.
Additionally, your hypothesis that "If God couldn't convince me that HE exists, like you said he couldn't, I guess that makes him limited in a way, no?" is absolutely ridiculous. The existence of God is not contingent on your inability to conceptualize an infinite being. But please continue to show my ignorance and baseless claims without any evidence or rationalization, without any qualification of your impeccable standard of evidence or any attempt to respond to the issue without attacking me.
People, Gabriel Yakub is not interested in finding God or looking for the truth. He doesn't even apply any standard of intellectualism or discussion. He is only interested in discrediting the Christian faith and the Coptic Church's beliefs and confusing as many people in the process. Don't indulge in his covert pseudo-intellectualism.
I hope that it is not overwhelming that everybody is respinding to you, I assure you that it is because we really want you to see it from out perspective. We don't want to be rude, but we would like to provide some insight.
You said something in one of your posts which really threw me off. I think that this may be one of the reasons why you are having trouble accepting God. [quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=12639.msg148608#msg148608 date=1323238281] I agree that there are certain things that science cannot answer but its the best thing we have so far to analyze our world in an objective way, and no one has provided a better alternative. [emphasis mine]
I feel that this is a problem. It seems to me that you have fallen into the view of the difference between the enlightenment and the romanticism. Let us not forget that if God exists (and I use "if" just to be hypothetical) then as the creator of our souls and the science, then both of them must be true. True Christians do not deny true science. Forgive me, but you may have been influenced by this latinized or westernized view of God as something irrational that you just say "OK" to. This is not in any way Orthodoxy. Read Origen and Augustine on the interpretation of Genesis, and tell me what you think.
Another thing which I want you to understand is something that C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity. He says that we should not fall into the idea that the doubt of god is a new thing. As long as there have been believers, there have existed people who doubt them. Take a look at Noah, take a look at Job who's wife told him to "curse God and die." (Job 2:9) do not think that people are just coming out with reasons to disbelieve God now, it has always been a topic of discussion, and there have always been doctors of the faith who you should look into.
I had a question for you, Gabe. Is this patritics course intense on what they said or just who said what, and who responded to who, and time periods and that stuff? If there is no deep content, I recommend you take a course with deeper searching into the actual content of the sayings.
good question, I don't have the answer but I think its something you may be able to further research. I figure, that if we're still asking questions and come to a decisive answer anyway, then we are at fault at using faulty reasoning, thats just my opinion, I don't mean to offend you by saying that, I am guilty of that also.
The God Christ,
thats not something I've thought about, because it isn't relevant. If something exists then it does so regardless of my wanting it to. If you're asking whether I potentially favor certain pieces of information over others in order to confirm my current position on the issue, then no.
Timothym,
Yes but you're still using an analogy to get to that. All good, I understand that you're not trying to convince me of anything. And I use to see the world that same way, I guess I was trying to illustrate why I don't anymore. Thanks Timothym.
Michael Boutros,
Thanks for clarifying where you're coming from, I'll try to explain why this doesn't work for me and why logic is important for me, but I'll explain why i can't quite relate to the comparison first. According to the biblical story, it seems like St Mary was able to accept the fact that an Angel had appeared to her ( because St Mary already believed that realm existed), but not so much that she as a virgin will conceive.
Also, I can't just accept something, belief, or at least my belief, doesn't work like that. I need justification and thats where, for me at least, logic and reasoning would come in, I need good reasons in order to accept a statement. For example, I can't just decide to accept the statement that aliens exist because other people have, i mean to say, its just not possible for me, again I need good reasons. Its like asking you to believe that there's a dragon in your room that doesn't manifest in reality. Could you do that? Some say that you can't make something limitless limited, or put God under a microscope, but I like to argue that if Jesus was God then at least He could demonstrate on some level that He exists, if He came down again..but people will argue back, 'well when Jesus was on earth 2000 years ago people didn't believe He was God, even after the miracles, so chances are if Jesus came down again you wont either'. lol So it would seem I lose both ways I guess.
Hey ReturnOrthodoxy,
I really do appreciate the responses and the involvement of discussion here, and I do enjoy people challenging me. I may be off for a few days though as I am behind on a few assignments :/
Thanks for the reading suggestions, it seems as if I've gotta hit the library on the holidays, but thats always fun for me :) < geek.
I agree with you that unbelief isn't new, and like wise neither is belief, If I understand what you're saying then I don't think either of these observations have any bearing on the actual state- of -affairs that is, whether God exists or not...Which is probably what you're getting at lol.
So far in the course we've just been covering some general ground as to what patrology entails, who were the church fathers, what were the content and aims of their writings. It was only last night that we focused on one of the early fathers, St Clement of Rome. I think we'll be covering all of the church fathers but to what depth? I really don't know, this kind of study is very new to me. And I don't know of any other place who offers this kind of study, or if I could afford it at the moment. We do get to study one church father that we have to do a 15 min presentation on, I've been recommended the persons who wrote ladder of divine assent.
Will keep you posted. I'll chat to you guys later.
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=12639.msg148706#msg148706 date=1323301270] thats not something I've thought about, because it isn't relevant. If something exists then it does so regardless of my wanting it to. Yes it is relevant. If you don't want to know the truth, then you won't see it when it hits you in the face. It comes back to your own limited abritrary standard of evidence.
If you're asking whether I potentially favor certain pieces of information over others in order to confirm my current position on the issue, then no.
Yes you do. You favor pseudo-intellectualism over scripture, patristics, and basic logic. You said it yourself.
For example, I can't just decide to accept the statement that aliens exist because other people have, i mean to say, its just not possible for me, again I need good reasons. Its like asking you to believe that there's a dragon in your room that doesn't manifest in reality. Could you do that?
So I was right on my first post when I said "the rhetoric of the atheist is "God is no different than Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy"." I guess I need to add "a dragon in my room, aliens, the abominable snowman and Godzilla." So if you start with a priori that God is as fictitous as these other characters, then there is no need to even investigate God's existence. No one every set out to prove the Tooth Fairy exists because we already know she doesn't. And any attempt to prove the existence of the Tooth Fairy cannot be based on logical justification. By assigning the same deductive reasoning to God, the atheist can never accept any justification that God exists. As I said, Gabriel Yakub or any other atheist is not looking for the truth.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=12639.msg148719#msg148719 date=1323307448] [quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148718#msg148718 date=1323307025] The fool says in his heart there is no God." (St. Augustine)
That was not Saint Augustine, rather David the prophet in Psalm 14:1-3.
Indeed.
I guess St. Augustine mentions this verse frequently.
[quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148718#msg148718 date=1323307025] I think you are hiding behind a facade of atheism to cover up other personal reasons for not wanting a God.
TITL, can you credibilize my main point that atheism has ulterior motives? TheGodChrist just did.
PS. The actual verb is accredit, not credibilize. But as Guardian of Credibility, you can just "Mad credit props, saith the Guardian."
the reason why i didn't respond to you is because you very often misrepresent my position and insist that you haven't. I'm gong to respond with a clarification just this once, and I wont engage in any further discussion with you until I see that you can address an accurate representation of what I'm saying. I think thats fair.
"Yes it is relevant. If you don't want to know the truth, then you won't see it when it hits you in the face. It comes back to your own limited abritrary standard of evidence."
Congratulations for agreeing with what I said right after that, concerning confirmation bias.
"Yes you do. You favor pseudo-intellectualism over scripture, patristics, and basic logic. You said it yourself."
You're confusing pseudo-intellectualism with a logical frame work with which I use to attempt to asses our reality as objectively as I can. Even so, what you refer to as 'pseudo intellectualism' is not information. "Information" is defined as (according to the american oxford dictionary): "facts provided or learned about something or someone : a vital piece of information. See note at knowledge." Your statement makes no sense.
"So I was right on my first post when I said "the rhetoric of the atheist is "God is no different than Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy"." I guess I need to add "a dragon in my room, aliens, the abominable snowman and Godzilla." So if you start with a priori that God is as fictitous as these other characters, then there is no need to even investigate God's existence. No one every set out to prove the Tooth Fairy exists because we already know she doesn't. And any attempt to prove the existence of the Tooth Fairy cannot be based on logical justification. By assigning the same deductive reasoning to God, the atheist can never accept any justification that God exists. As I said, Gabriel Yakub or any other atheist is not looking for the truth."
No you weren't right, and its embarrassing. Nowhere have i ever said, nor suggested that God is comparable or no different or as fictitious as Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. What I did say was that not all claims are equal and therefore they each require their own standard of evidence. My Dragon and alien analogy were used to demonstrate the inability for people (or at least myself) to adopt beliefs at a drop of a hat, and without good reason. Furthermore, instead of just asserting what people wont believe, try to actually make an argument that supports what you're saying because that is more likely to boost any credibility to your assertions.
The God Christ,
i want to ask why you think that, but I'm trying not to engage in anymore discussions until I get my school work done.
[quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148720#msg148720 date=1323308487] [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=12639.msg148719#msg148719 date=1323307448] [quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148718#msg148718 date=1323307025] The fool says in his heart there is no God." (St. Augustine)
That was not Saint Augustine, rather David the prophet in Psalm 14:1-3.
Indeed.
I guess St. Augustine mentions this verse frequently.
✞✞✞
no he doesn't.
Anselm, however, used it in his philosophical argument for the proof of the existence of God, which is known as the ontological argument.
[quote author=Biboboy link=topic=12639.msg148732#msg148732 date=1323315374] [quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148720#msg148720 date=1323308487] [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=12639.msg148719#msg148719 date=1323307448] [quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148718#msg148718 date=1323307025] The fool says in his heart there is no God." (St. Augustine)
That was not Saint Augustine, rather David the prophet in Psalm 14:1-3.
Indeed.
I guess St. Augustine mentions this verse frequently.
✞✞✞
no he doesn't.
Anselm, however, used it in his philosophical argument for the proof of the existence of God, which is known as the ontological argument.
I believe he did. I have a book where he mentions and explains the verse.
May I ask why you would jump to this conclusion so quickly? I would think only a handful of people have read every single Augustinian work, as he did write quite a bit.
You said St. Augustine mentions this verse "frequently." I replied to the negative, because he did not use it frequently. His frequent term is "Truth." You may have come across St. Augustine's interpretation of the Psalm, since he has an entire book interpreting all the Psalms.
The person who does use the term frequently is Anselm.
[quote author=Biboboy link=topic=12639.msg148743#msg148743 date=1323319870] You said St. Augustine mentions this verse "frequently." I replied to the negative, because he did not use it frequently. His frequent term is "Truth." You may have come across St. Augustine's interpretation of the Psalm, since he has an entire book interpreting all the Psalms.
The person who does use the term frequently is Anselm.
Interesting. I know that Anselm mentions it extensively, as many of his arguments deal with the existence of God.
[quote author=Biboboy link=topic=12639.msg148739#msg148739 date=1323317787] Of course he didn't. No church father did so, because citations were invented in the 16th century.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=12639.msg148725#msg148725 date=1323310812] [quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148718#msg148718 date=1323307025] I think you are hiding behind a facade of atheism to cover up other personal reasons for not wanting a God.
TITL, can you credibilize my main point that atheism has ulterior motives? TheGodChrist just did.
PS. The actual verb is accredit, not credibilize. But as Guardian of Credibility, you can just "Mad credit props, saith the Guardian."
Your score can't be higher than ILSM's, so I can only bring you down a decimal point: 3.3
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=12639.msg148728#msg148728 date=1323311596] No one every set out to prove the Tooth Fairy exists because we already know she doesn't.
Comments
Michael,
what do you mean by define God with science? and Fathom God with our senses?
~Gabe
Gabriel, it sounds to me like you're a logical, straightforward person. I would consider myself the same way, as I'm actually studying math and logic is one of my strong suits. But when it comes time to consider God, all of that goes out the window. There is no if-then for God, there is no cause-effect for God, there is no way to empirically measure God. Logic applied to God yields failed logic.
Take for example a story regarding your namesake, Archangel Gabriel, the Announcer. St. Mary tried to use logic when he announced to her the good news - but it didn't work. So she accepted that God is outside of logic, and we must do the same.
You dodged this question.
Do you want there to be a God?
✞✞✞
First and foremost, you are in no position to assert what will and what won't convince me that God exists (although I agree with you that it wont be the Bible, the Patristic writings, the clergy, and "basic logic").
I did not make any assertions on what will convince. You made the assertions and you just confirmed it in the second half of your sentence in parentheses. Buddy, I'm a doctor. I know plenty about the scientific method. It is an art of interpretation based on peer review, hypotheses and reproducible experiments. It cannot prove the existence of God.
"Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) [a conjecture]. It can only falsify [it]. This is what Einstein meant when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Source. All quotations below are from the same source.
Here's more information about the assumptions and philosophy of the scientific method.
"There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world."
Gabe, if you want to believe that humans have the capacity to perceive and rationalize an infinite being, it's your prerogative. But it is nonetheless an assumption you can't dismiss.
"Kuhn (1961) said the scientist generally has a theory in mind before designing and undertaking experiments so as to make empirical observations, and that the "route from theory to measurement can almost never be traveled backward". This implies that the way in which theory is tested is dictated by the nature of the theory itself, which led Kuhn (1961, p. 166) to argue that "once it has been adopted by a profession ... no theory is recognized to be testable by any quantitative tests that it has not already passed".
In other words, since the Christian profession (ie, the Church) as well as a fairly large minority of the scientific community have adopted the existence of God, no theory that states God doesn't exist can be recognized as a quantitative test without passing all previous tests, philosophies and claims in favor of the existence of God. Your standard of evidence needs to address all previous claims and evidence for the existence of God before you can recognize it as useful.
In addition, you cannot use tangible, finite experiments to test the existence of an intangible, infinite being. They will not be reproducible, they will be solely subject to interpretation and therefore negate the efficacy of the scientific method. This is part of the utility function of the scientific method.
"Utility Function - A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it. One of the elements of any scientific utility function is the refutability of the model. Another is its simplicity, on the Principle of Parsimony more commonly known as Occam's Razor."
The onus, therefore, is on science to find an an intangible, infinite experiment to measure the usefulness of the scientific model to explain the existence of God. And an infinite experiment, by definition, cannot be reproducible. Therefore, the scientific method (and your alleged standard of evidence) cannot prove the existence of God. The primary purpose of the Church is to bring souls to God. Secondary purposes include social gatherings and cultural interaction. If one wants to "reconcile with their heritage" or "learn more about what they came from" as you said before, they have a multitude of other sources that will not deal with theology such as libraries and university programs. If one truly wanted to "separate the two", you would use another source. Maybe, it's you who can't separate the two. In your post #29, you asked a hypothetical question about attending a mosque or synagogue without ulterior motives. I answered in post #34 about that it would be considered ulterior motives. In turn, to elucidate my response I asked you a hypothetical question about entering a homosexual bar after you satisfied curiosity. Instead of responding, you attacked me and said "My reasoning is flawed" and now you accuse me of calling you dishonest and homosexual. Now I see why your impeccable standard of evidence is so superior to my flawed reasoning.
Additionally, your hypothesis that "If God couldn't convince me that HE exists, like you said he couldn't, I guess that makes him limited in a way, no?" is absolutely ridiculous. The existence of God is not contingent on your inability to conceptualize an infinite being. But please continue to show my ignorance and baseless claims without any evidence or rationalization, without any qualification of your impeccable standard of evidence or any attempt to respond to the issue without attacking me.
People, Gabriel Yakub is not interested in finding God or looking for the truth. He doesn't even apply any standard of intellectualism or discussion. He is only interested in discrediting the Christian faith and the Coptic Church's beliefs and confusing as many people in the process. Don't indulge in his covert pseudo-intellectualism.
I hope that it is not overwhelming that everybody is respinding to you, I assure you that it is because we really want you to see it from out perspective. We don't want to be rude, but we would like to provide some insight.
You said something in one of your posts which really threw me off. I think that this may be one of the reasons why you are having trouble accepting God.
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=12639.msg148608#msg148608 date=1323238281]
I agree that there are certain things that science cannot answer but its the best thing we have so far to analyze our world in an objective way, and no one has provided a better alternative.
[emphasis mine]
I feel that this is a problem. It seems to me that you have fallen into the view of the difference between the enlightenment and the romanticism. Let us not forget that if God exists (and I use "if" just to be hypothetical) then as the creator of our souls and the science, then both of them must be true. True Christians do not deny true science. Forgive me, but you may have been influenced by this latinized or westernized view of God as something irrational that you just say "OK" to. This is not in any way Orthodoxy. Read Origen and Augustine on the interpretation of Genesis, and tell me what you think.
Another thing which I want you to understand is something that C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity. He says that we should not fall into the idea that the doubt of god is a new thing. As long as there have been believers, there have existed people who doubt them. Take a look at Noah, take a look at Job who's wife told him to "curse God and die." (Job 2:9) do not think that people are just coming out with reasons to disbelieve God now, it has always been a topic of discussion, and there have always been doctors of the faith who you should look into.
I had a question for you, Gabe. Is this patritics course intense on what they said or just who said what, and who responded to who, and time periods and that stuff? If there is no deep content, I recommend you take a course with deeper searching into the actual content of the sayings.
Looking forward to your response,
ReturnOrthodoxy
Imikhail,
good question, I don't have the answer but I think its something you may be able to further research. I figure, that if we're still asking questions and come to a decisive answer anyway, then we are at fault at using faulty reasoning, thats just my opinion, I don't mean to offend you by saying that, I am guilty of that also.
The God Christ,
thats not something I've thought about, because it isn't relevant. If something exists then it does so regardless of my wanting it to. If you're asking whether I potentially favor certain pieces of information over others in order to confirm my current position on the issue, then no.
Timothym,
Yes but you're still using an analogy to get to that. All good, I understand that you're not trying to convince me of anything. And I use to see the world that same way, I guess I was trying to illustrate why I don't anymore. Thanks Timothym.
Michael Boutros,
Thanks for clarifying where you're coming from, I'll try to explain why this doesn't work for me and why logic is important for me, but I'll explain why i can't quite relate to the comparison first. According to the biblical story, it seems like St Mary was able to accept the fact that an Angel had appeared to her ( because St Mary already believed that realm existed), but not so much that she as a virgin will conceive.
Also, I can't just accept something, belief, or at least my belief, doesn't work like that. I need justification and thats where, for me at least, logic and reasoning would come in, I need good reasons in order to accept a statement. For example, I can't just decide to accept the statement that aliens exist because other people have, i mean to say, its just not possible for me, again I need good reasons. Its like asking you to believe that there's a dragon in your room that doesn't manifest in reality. Could you do that? Some say that you can't make something limitless limited, or put God under a microscope, but I like to argue that if Jesus was God then at least He could demonstrate on some level that He exists, if He came down again..but people will argue back, 'well when Jesus was on earth 2000 years ago people didn't believe He was God, even after the miracles, so chances are if Jesus came down again you wont either'. lol So it would seem I lose both ways I guess.
Hey ReturnOrthodoxy,
I really do appreciate the responses and the involvement of discussion here, and I do enjoy people challenging me. I may be off for a few days though as I am behind on a few assignments :/
Thanks for the reading suggestions, it seems as if I've gotta hit the library on the holidays, but thats always fun for me :) < geek.
I agree with you that unbelief isn't new, and like wise neither is belief, If I understand what you're saying then I don't think either of these observations have any bearing on the actual state- of -affairs that is, whether God exists or not...Which is probably what you're getting at lol.
So far in the course we've just been covering some general ground as to what patrology entails, who were the church fathers, what were the content and aims of their writings. It was only last night that we focused on one of the early fathers, St Clement of Rome. I think we'll be covering all of the church fathers but to what depth? I really don't know, this kind of study is very new to me. And I don't know of any other place who offers this kind of study, or if I could afford it at the moment. We do get to study one church father that we have to do a 15 min presentation on, I've been recommended the persons who wrote ladder of divine assent.
Will keep you posted. I'll chat to you guys later.
Peace.
~Gabe
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=12639.msg148706#msg148706 date=1323301270]
thats not something I've thought about, because it isn't relevant. If something exists then it does so regardless of my wanting it to.
Yes it is relevant. If you don't want to know the truth, then you won't see it when it hits you in the face. It comes back to your own limited abritrary standard of evidence. Yes you do. You favor pseudo-intellectualism over scripture, patristics, and basic logic. You said it yourself. So I was right on my first post when I said "the rhetoric of the atheist is "God is no different than Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy"." I guess I need to add "a dragon in my room, aliens, the abominable snowman and Godzilla." So if you start with a priori that God is as fictitous as these other characters, then there is no need to even investigate God's existence. No one every set out to prove the Tooth Fairy exists because we already know she doesn't. And any attempt to prove the existence of the Tooth Fairy cannot be based on logical justification. By assigning the same deductive reasoning to God, the atheist can never accept any justification that God exists. As I said, Gabriel Yakub or any other atheist is not looking for the truth.
So I was right on my first post when I said
I'm the only one who can say that. You can't credibilize your own post.
To be quite honest, I don't think you're a real atheist.
I think you are hiding behind a facade of atheism to cover up other personal reasons for not wanting a God.
And this is disheartening to say the least...
"The fool says in his heart there is no God." (St. Augustine)
✞✞✞
The fool says in his heart there is no God." (St. Augustine)
That was not Saint Augustine, rather David the prophet in Psalm 14:1-3.
[quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148718#msg148718 date=1323307025]
The fool says in his heart there is no God." (St. Augustine)
That was not Saint Augustine, rather David the prophet in Psalm 14:1-3.
Indeed.
I guess St. Augustine mentions this verse frequently.
✞✞✞
I think you are hiding behind a facade of atheism to cover up other personal reasons for not wanting a God.
TITL, can you credibilize my main point that atheism has ulterior motives? TheGodChrist just did.
PS. The actual verb is accredit, not credibilize. But as Guardian of Credibility, you can just "Mad credit props, saith the Guardian."
Remnkemi,
the reason why i didn't respond to you is because you very often misrepresent my position and insist that you haven't. I'm gong to respond with a clarification just this once, and I wont engage in any further discussion with you until I see that you can address an accurate representation of what I'm saying. I think thats fair.
"Yes it is relevant. If you don't want to know the truth, then you won't see it when it hits you in the face. It comes back to your own limited abritrary standard of evidence."
Congratulations for agreeing with what I said right after that, concerning confirmation bias.
"Yes you do. You favor pseudo-intellectualism over scripture, patristics, and basic logic. You said it yourself."
You're confusing pseudo-intellectualism with a logical frame work with which I use to attempt to asses our reality as objectively as I can. Even so, what you refer to as 'pseudo intellectualism' is not information. "Information" is defined as (according to the american oxford dictionary): "facts provided or learned about something or someone : a vital piece of information. See note at knowledge." Your statement makes no sense.
"So I was right on my first post when I said "the rhetoric of the atheist is "God is no different than Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy"." I guess I need to add "a dragon in my room, aliens, the abominable snowman and Godzilla." So if you start with a priori that God is as fictitous as these other characters, then there is no need to even investigate God's existence. No one every set out to prove the Tooth Fairy exists because we already know she doesn't. And any attempt to prove the existence of the Tooth Fairy cannot be based on logical justification. By assigning the same deductive reasoning to God, the atheist can never accept any justification that God exists. As I said, Gabriel Yakub or any other atheist is not looking for the truth."
No you weren't right, and its embarrassing. Nowhere have i ever said, nor suggested that God is comparable or no different or as fictitious as Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. What I did say was that not all claims are equal and therefore they each require their own standard of evidence. My Dragon and alien analogy were used to demonstrate the inability for people (or at least myself) to adopt beliefs at a drop of a hat, and without good reason. Furthermore, instead of just asserting what people wont believe, try to actually make an argument that supports what you're saying because that is more likely to boost any credibility to your assertions.
The God Christ,
i want to ask why you think that, but I'm trying not to engage in anymore discussions until I get my school work done.
~Gabe
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=12639.msg148719#msg148719 date=1323307448]
[quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148718#msg148718 date=1323307025]
The fool says in his heart there is no God." (St. Augustine)
That was not Saint Augustine, rather David the prophet in Psalm 14:1-3.
Indeed.
I guess St. Augustine mentions this verse frequently.
✞✞✞
no he doesn't.
Anselm, however, used it in his philosophical argument for the proof of the existence of God, which is known as the ontological argument.
[quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148720#msg148720 date=1323308487]
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=12639.msg148719#msg148719 date=1323307448]
[quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148718#msg148718 date=1323307025]
The fool says in his heart there is no God." (St. Augustine)
That was not Saint Augustine, rather David the prophet in Psalm 14:1-3.
Indeed.
I guess St. Augustine mentions this verse frequently.
✞✞✞
no he doesn't.
Anselm, however, used it in his philosophical argument for the proof of the existence of God, which is known as the ontological argument.
I believe he did. I have a book where he mentions and explains the verse.
May I ask why you would jump to this conclusion so quickly? I would think only a handful of people have read every single Augustinian work, as he did write quite a bit.
I have attached the page for your reference: :)
http://postimage.org/image/a6lysjznz/
✞✞✞
The person who does use the term frequently is Anselm.
You said St. Augustine mentions this verse "frequently." I replied to the negative, because he did not use it frequently. His frequent term is "Truth." You may have come across St. Augustine's interpretation of the Psalm, since he has an entire book interpreting all the Psalms.
The person who does use the term frequently is Anselm.
Interesting. I know that Anselm mentions it extensively, as many of his arguments deal with the existence of God.
✞✞✞
Of course he didn't. No church father did so, because citations were invented in the 16th century.
They would usually mention an author.
[quote author=✞TheGodChrist✞ link=topic=12639.msg148718#msg148718 date=1323307025]
I think you are hiding behind a facade of atheism to cover up other personal reasons for not wanting a God.
TITL, can you credibilize my main point that atheism has ulterior motives? TheGodChrist just did.
PS. The actual verb is accredit, not credibilize. But as Guardian of Credibility, you can just "Mad credit props, saith the Guardian."
Your score can't be higher than ILSM's, so I can only bring you down a decimal point: 3.3
Oh. Accredit. I'll remember that.
[quote author=GabrielYakub link=topic=12639.msg148728#msg148728 date=1323311596]
No one every set out to prove the Tooth Fairy exists because we already know she doesn't.
Correction: the Tooth Fairy is in fact a he.
Thank you.