tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4938158753667858931..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: 20 Arguments for God Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30991346038536405842014-02-11T14:32:52.479-07:002014-02-11T14:32:52.479-07:00"I don't want mysteries"
This simpl..."<i>I don't want mysteries</i>"<br /><br />This simply shows that you do not understand the meaning of the term mystery. Catholics speak, for instance, of the "Joyful" or the "Sorrowful" Mysteries - examples being the Annunciation, the Incarnation, the Scourging, or the Crucifixion (there are, of course, others). Theologically speaking, a mystery is not meant in the secular usage, as in something unknown or that defies understanding. Quite the contrary. It indicates a concept or event that is fully illuminated only by the light of Divine Revelation <i>with human reason</i> as the fundamental starting point.<br /><br />(For example: <i>Reason</i> gives one to understand the physical and societal nature of Baptism. <i>Revelation</i> allows one to see its full spiritual significance.)<br /><br />"<i>I want to see for myself if possible</i>"<br /><br />And who says you can't? Only your obstinate stubbornness is preventing you from doing so now. I sincerely wish you could see how your comments (at least those on this website) appear to an outside observer - as those of someone desperate to "have eyes and not see; to have ears, and not hear". And yet your hunger for the Truth remains unassuaged. Why else come back repeatedly to this website? Why so thirsty for the comments of Crude, Ben Yachov, or even (God Himself knows why) of me? In the secret of your heart, you know why.<br /><br />"<i>There is no room for religion in my framework</i>"<br /><br />And there you yourself have said so. Just as there was "no room at the inn" 2000 years ago on Christmas night. Perhaps it's time to "make room"? There's an infant Christ ready to make a home in you, and you're going to push Him out into the stable? The ox and the ass are going to prove to be more welcoming than im-skeptical?<br /><br />You're better than that.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52202107749884540052014-02-11T12:14:18.297-07:002014-02-11T12:14:18.297-07:00planks,
"In short, to limit yourself to &quo...planks,<br /><br />"In short, to limit yourself to "an intellectual need to understand my world" (in itself entirely good and necessary, though woefully incomplete) is to willfully sever yourself from much (perhaps even the majority) of what makes you you."<br /><br />Who says I limit myself in the way you imagine? I am just as human as anyone else, and I understand that we humans do have emotional needs. The issue here is how those needs are fulfilled. Emotional needs are fulfilled by personal relationships, aesthetic experiences, thrill-seeking, and various other activities. Perhaps if you are unfulfilled by your life experiences, you need something else, and religion can fill that gap for you, but I don't need it.<br /><br />On the intellectual side, I don't want mysteries, I want answers. I want to understand. I am not satisfied to have faith that there is a magical hand in control of the world. I want to see for myself if possible, or have a good idea of how things work. I want to have a framework of understanding that is logically consistent, and into which all things fit. That's not to say that I feel a need to know everything, but I want to know at least that everything has a place in that framework. There is no room for religion in my framework, because it breaks the logic. It destroys the cohesiveness, and prevents understanding. It doesn't fit with the reality that I observe.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29624095173401043492014-02-11T10:28:25.420-07:002014-02-11T10:28:25.420-07:00Oh, im-skeptical, what you fail to realize is that...Oh, im-skeptical, what you fail to realize is that you (and every other human being) is not simply an intellect. You (and the rest of us) are creatures of body and spirit. We have reasoning minds, emotions, loving spirits, sinful natures, physical perceptions, bodily functions... we sweat, we fall asleep, we have flashes of brilliance, we fall deeply in love, and we weep uncontrollably in the presence both of great beauty and great sorrow. In short, to limit yourself to "an intellectual need to understand my world" (in itself entirely good and necessary, though woefully incomplete) is to willfully sever yourself from much (perhaps even the majority) of what makes you <i>you</i>.<br /><br />So yes, yes, yes, "this shows the emotional nature of religious belief". Indeed it does. Religious belief DOES have an emotional component, as well it should. Because <b>so do you!</b> Do you limit your nutritional intake to protein, while ignoring your need for various vitamins, starches, fiber, carbohydrates, etc.? Of course not. In the same manner, it is no virtue to limit yourself to some sort of "intellectual need". Like a diet of nothing but meat, it will eventually kill you. (Or at the least, make you extremely unhealthy.)planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19117345295054386722014-02-11T10:14:01.423-07:002014-02-11T10:14:01.423-07:00"I write this directly to you, im-skeptical. ..."I write this directly to you, im-skeptical. You too, Frances. Without the least bit of mindreading, it is screamingly obvious that you are both dissatisfied with your life right now, and are very much aware that your professed materialism is completely incapable of answering to your deepest needs. You have a great opportunity to move on to a much better place."<br /><br />I think this shows the emotional nature of religious belief. Sorry to disappoint you, planks. I am not suffering from some unfulfilled emotional need. I have an intellectual need to understand my world. I don't want sugar-coating or empty promises of fulfillment in the next life. I want to hear it like it is. And I don't get that from religion.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91590857721741790682014-02-11T06:50:51.847-07:002014-02-11T06:50:51.847-07:00Before I sign off again for a few more months, I&#...Before I sign off again for a few more months, I'd like to add my own two cents to this thread. Here is my candidate for yet another "argument for God" - possibly the best one of all:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObNrMDLhRzg" rel="nofollow">Singing Lessons</a>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37944186753376163912014-02-11T05:53:17.242-07:002014-02-11T05:53:17.242-07:00This conversation has been an occasion for me to t...This conversation has been an occasion for me to think rather deeply about how getting hung up on issues of decidedly lesser import can cause those sincerely seeking after the Truth to find totally unnecessary roadblocks thrown in their way by well-meaning, but socially inept believers (myself being the first sinner amongst them).<br /><br />Yes, I affirm with what I regard to be excellent reason the historical veracity of the New Testament narratives, right down to very small details. But no, I am not a "wooden literalist". We after all do not possess the original Words of Christ. At best, we have a Greek translation of what was originally spoken in Aramaic. Nevertheless, in the <i>essentials</i>, after (despite what some on this site have said) extensive and open-minded pondering of the evidence, I believe that the accounts are accurate renderings of real world events (to include the infancy narratives, the miracles, and the Resurrection).<br /><br />But in the end, the trivia does not matter. Nit picking over how Judas met his end, or what words were spoken where and in what order, etc., does a great disservice to what ought to be the Main Event here. Such debate can neither "prove" nor "disprove" what is really at stake in these discussions. Do you realize that God Himself has intervened in the most intensely personal way possible in human history <i>and in your own life</i>? Do you understand that Jesus is not some distant, historical figure to be studied and picked apart on an internet blog, but a living person directly accessible to you <i>today</i>? As Pope Benedict XVI wrote (<i>slightly paraphrased, so no quote marks</i>), <b>Christianity is not just an intellectual idea, but is rather an encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a new direction.</b><br /><br />I write this directly to you, im-skeptical. You too, Frances. Without the least bit of mindreading, it is screamingly obvious that you are both dissatisfied with your life right now, and are very much aware that your professed materialism is completely incapable of answering to your deepest needs. You have a great opportunity to move on to a much better place.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51020027450714586392014-02-11T05:52:05.323-07:002014-02-11T05:52:05.323-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87109931057891872032014-02-10T19:09:37.756-07:002014-02-10T19:09:37.756-07:00I am here making an exception to my year-long &quo...I am here making an exception to my year-long "internet fast" to brag about my beautiful, beautiful daughter's amazing performance earlier this month at Indiana University. You can see it <a href="http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGI0URzEPvbungdgUa52Z4lerHbgwc4DL" rel="nofollow">here</a>. If you listen to only one set (if any), be sure to make it Number 4, the Elgar Sea Pictures.<br /><br />God in Heaven, can that girl ever sing!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14097425726748917182014-02-10T19:05:19.144-07:002014-02-10T19:05:19.144-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28104042958794949972014-02-10T18:22:47.002-07:002014-02-10T18:22:47.002-07:00The variations in the account of the Arizona/New J...The variations in the account of the Arizona/New Jersey family example is understood and appreciated because one is fully apprised of the facts behind the two sets of data. We can see the the singular nature of the account.<br /><br />But when it comes to <i>"So can you now see how there need be no conflict or contradiction between the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke? None whatsoever"</i>, it becomes inordinately problematic. This assertion is little more than post-hoc rationalization, an imagined extrapolation of two set of data for which there is no independent corroboration of those two data sets. Any reconciliation of the Arizona/New Jersey sets of data simply cannot be applied to the Gospel accounts because the two sets of data cannot be substantiated or verified. To attempt to do so is nothing more than Apologetical harmonization of two different accounts gleaned from a perhaps common source [probably Mark, though Mark makes no reference at all to Jesus's birth or early life except by a few very tangential references to his familial heritage ] but written for two different audiences with differing traditions [Much in the same way that Mormonism is to the Baptists or the Episcopalians].<br /><br />It is interesting that; "The gospels were apparently composed in stages. Mark's traditional ending (Mark 16:9–20, see Mark 16) was most likely composed early in the 2nd century and appended to Mark in the middle of that century.[27] The birth and infancy narratives apparently developed late in the tradition.[28] Luke and Matthew may have originally appeared without their first two chapters.[28]" Wiki<br /><br />Also there was: "A genre of "Infancy gospels" (Greek: protoevangelion) arose in the 2nd century, such as the Gospel of James, which introduces the concept of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the absolutely different sayings Gospel of Thomas), both of which related many miraculous incidents from the life of Mary and the childhood of Jesus that are not included in the canonical gospels." Wiki<br /><br />Equally: "Marcion of Sinope, c. 150, had a version of the gospel of Luke which differed substantially from that which has now become the standard text. Marcion's version was far less Jewish than the now canonical text, and his critics alleged that he had edited out the portions he didn't like from the canonical version, though Marcion argued that his text was the more genuinely original one. Marcion also rejected all the other gospels, including Matthew, Mark and especially John, which he alleged had been forged by Irenaeus." Wiki<br /><br />So on balance, I would generally infer the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke are likely to have been two different stories for different purposes and different reasons, and both were an agglomerative work in progress, including contributions from other contributors over a period of one or two centuries.<br /><br />Your harmonization and nonchalant gloss over the many disparate and conflicting elements in the accounts and the downplay of the dynamic flux of cultures in the Middle East in the time period these stories were construed are simply becoming increasingly credulous and less credible as time goes on. The professed coherence of the gospel narratives can no longer be sustained as a viable explanation.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53021581402144959852014-02-10T17:53:49.403-07:002014-02-10T17:53:49.403-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79883585187781691902014-02-10T15:44:38.032-07:002014-02-10T15:44:38.032-07:00The way some people imagine "discrepancies&qu...The way some people imagine "discrepancies" or even contradictions in the New Testament makes me think of the following two stories, <b>both 100% true for one and the same family</b>:<br /><br />1. Richard's parents moved to Arizona in 1947. Richard was born in that state in 1949. Afterwards, he had younger brothers and sisters, also born in Arizona. He lives there now.<br /><br />2. Robert's family lived in New Jersey. Robert was born in that state in 1952. His family eventually moved to Arizona in 1956, and there followed younger brothers and sisters, all born in Arizona. Robert today lives on the East Coast.<br /><br />Sounds like two completely different families, right? Well, I wouldn't blame you for thinking so, but you'd be completely wrong. Reconciliation of the two narratives: Richard's family moved to Arizona in 1947, where he was born two years later. He and his parents shortly thereafter moved to New Jersey, where his younger brother Robert was born in 1952. They then all moved back to Arizona 4 years later, where younger brothers and sisters were born in subsequent years. Richard never moved out of the state, whereas his younger brother did.<br /><br />So can you now see how there need be no conflict or contradiction between the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke? None whatsoever.<br /><br />planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80581849730473859392014-02-10T14:22:35.385-07:002014-02-10T14:22:35.385-07:00The "discrepancies" you cite as examples...<i>The "discrepancies" you cite as examples are not discrepant. If the NT were like that, nobody would be talking about discrepancies and contradictions. As it is, you are forced to find creative ways to reconcile the real differences in the various accounts.</i><br /><br />Really? Explain how those examples are conceptually different from the discrepancies you and frances have cited in the New Testament. I am willing to bet dollars to donuts you can't. In fact, let's take one of your examples: Judas's suicide. Explain exactly what is wrong with Augustine of Hippo's reconciliation of Matthew and Acts (written about four hundred years after the event, a much shorter temporal time frame than your current speculation two thousand years later) that Judas hung himself in the field and eventually the rope or the tree branch gave way; causing his body to fall and burst. Explain how that is any different as opposed to describing a cause of death as a cerebral hemorrhaging as opposed to shot in the head.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52119660859834029872014-02-10T12:51:25.575-07:002014-02-10T12:51:25.575-07:00Plank
I would appreciate your response to the foll...Plank<br />I would appreciate your response to the following earlier query. <br /><br />You say, with some conviction <i>""But that's not a contradiction at all; it's merely a differing arrangement of the same material, presented differingly for thematic reasons."</i><br /><br />I ask again:<br />Can you recount Jesus's actual last words on the cross before he died? Is there any variation in the four Gospels of what he actually said? And if there are any differences, were those actual words 'presented differingly for thematic reasons', in your understanding? I can provide them for you if you wish.<br /><br />I'm not asking for what you believe but rather what you know and the evidence for it.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66454937187276632322014-02-10T12:47:15.481-07:002014-02-10T12:47:15.481-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18477565428605357082014-02-10T12:18:43.558-07:002014-02-10T12:18:43.558-07:00Karl,
The "discrepancies" you cite as e...Karl,<br /><br />The "discrepancies" you cite as examples are not discrepant. If the NT were like that, nobody would be talking about discrepancies and contradictions. As it is, you are forced to find creative ways to reconcile the real differences in the various accounts.<br /><br />That's fine. You can talk yourself into believing the reconciliations. Just don't expect me to buy it.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84301673389331837822014-02-10T09:59:04.834-07:002014-02-10T09:59:04.834-07:00Planks,
LOL, yes I'm in the same position. Th...Planks,<br /><br />LOL, yes I'm in the same position. There's no point which I can make against the NT which hasn't been made (& better) by others before me. And the same responses have been put forward from the apologist side ever since there's been an apologist side to put them forward. And there have been counter-apologetic answers, and responses to the answers and so on and so forh. I know what the standard responses are. I just find them utterly unconvincing, no matter how intelligent the source. <br /><br />I agree that something like the discrepancies in Acts & Matthew wouldn't be enough cause to reject your beliefs *if you have other sound reasons for believing*. But that's my whole point - you don't. Like you, I think that people should look at the bigger picture and the discrepancies are just part of that picture which emerges of a generally untrustworthy account.<br /><br />I'd like to go back to your first post in which you said that the resurrection accounts were a proof of the existence of God. Yet when you come to argue that, the highest you put it is that they are better than alternative explanations. I don't agree with you there, but even if I did, the mere fact that an explanation is better than the alternatives is hardly enough to constitue proof. It would make it a theory (in the non-technical sense). Not proof.franceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679842803715180697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86917094845972671002014-02-10T09:52:49.454-07:002014-02-10T09:52:49.454-07:00People have been explaining away all those discrep...<i>People have been explaining away all those discrepancies and contradictions for many centuries. But the gospels still say what they say. And they still require explaining away if you don't want to suffer from cognitive dissonance.</i><br /><br />Oh please Skeppy, there are supposed discrepancies and contradictions in a lot of other biographical accounts. For example, I read two biographies on Nikola Tesla; one lists Tesla as being born in Croatia and the other as Austria. Seems like a discrepancy until you realize Croatia was part of the Austrian Empire at the time of his birth. Or maybe like one account saying somebody died of died of cerebral hemorrhaging and another saying he died of getting shot in the head (getting shot in the head is the reason he had cerebral hemorrhaging). But hey, investigating to see if there really are discrepancies and contradictions as opposed to two accounts describing something in a slightly different way would require time and effort you don't want to give and reading comprehension you don't have so your confusion is understandable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7311066632585013872014-02-10T07:52:55.499-07:002014-02-10T07:52:55.499-07:00"reconciliations of the accounts in Matthew a..."reconciliations of the accounts in Matthew and Luke date back at least as far as Saint Augustine (Fourth Century)"<br /><br />People have been explaining away all those discrepancies and contradictions for many centuries. But the gospels still say what they say. And they still require explaining away if you don't want to suffer from cognitive dissonance.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35361808497328715882014-02-10T07:10:50.275-07:002014-02-10T07:10:50.275-07:00I was unaware of this when making my original comm...I was unaware of this when making my original comment concerning the death of Judas, but (as I learned after after researching the topic a bit) reconciliations of the accounts in Matthew and Luke date back at least as far as Saint Augustine (Fourth Century). There are undoubtedly similar, even earlier harmonizations of which I am as yet unaware. <br /><br />But this actually strengthens my point - that the alleged discrepancy under discussion is no cause for anyone rejecting the Faith. After all, this is not some new discovery by modern scholars, but an issue that was "asked and answered" many, many centuries ago. I must assure you that St. Augustine was one hell of a lot smarter than me (just read his <i>Sermons</i> to get a taste for his towering intellect), and I would be loathe to challenge anything he wrote without damn good reason. <b>*</b><br /><br />Its both frustrating and amazing that <i>every last time</i> I think I have some new insight into the scriptures, I eventually learn that the very same point had been made in the Third Century or whatever. Way too often we see skeptics point to one or another passage in the Bible, imagining that they have discovered something that has occurred to no one else before them. Even sadder is to see some young Christian wrestling with some so-called "problem" in scripture that he thinks he alone has noticed, totally oblivious to the fact that the identical issue was dealt with more than adequately by someone else one or two thousand years ago.<br /><br /><b>*</b> There are many things St. Augustine said that I have serious disagreement with, but I assure you I have excellent reason for doing so. One does not debate him lightly! (And definitely <b>not</b> without all your ducks in a row.)planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20657731816008677072014-02-09T15:03:39.245-07:002014-02-09T15:03:39.245-07:00"I assume you didn't marry your wife with..."<i>I assume you didn't marry your wife without first getting to know her, at least a little, and so on that basis having formed an opinion based on what you knew as to whether she was the sort of person likely to cheat on you?</i>"<br /><br />Frances,<br /><br />Good point. In the same manner, I did not become a Christian until I stopped just believing <i>in</i> God, and started believing Him.<br /><br />On your other points, it's not <i>making up</i> extra details to fill out a very sparse narrative. After all, despite its reputation of being a long book, the Bible is comparatively rather short. There are many novels and libraries of textbooks that are considerably longer. What one is usually faced with when reading it are a few sentences that describe an enormously complicated situation. So yes, you have to occasionally "imagine a precipice" here and there. Again, so what? Matthew and Luke really weren't concerned with the details of Judas's demise, and to focus on them is to miss why they were writing the passage at all.<br /><br />(And besides, and wearisomely yet again, my point was not that this is how Judas met his end, but rather that your objection to the narrative is answerable by a reasonable person. This particular alleged discrepancy does not constitute a reason to disbelieve, and I have demonstrated so.)<br /><br />It's actually rather funny to watch people get all tripped up over some inconsequential bit of minutia, all the while failing to see the Big Picture. Mind you, I am not in the least admitting to any contradiction or error, it's just that when one prioritizes what is important and what is trivial, how Judas fell after hanging himself simply does not rank with the great issues of our or any other time.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76263674166782509922014-02-09T14:37:14.522-07:002014-02-09T14:37:14.522-07:00Planks,
I assume you didn't marry your wife w...Planks,<br /><br />I assume you didn't marry your wife without first getting to know her, at least a little, and so on that basis having formed an opinion based on what you knew as to whether she was the sort of person likely to cheat on you?franceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679842803715180697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56271636852816703722014-02-09T14:28:46.134-07:002014-02-09T14:28:46.134-07:00Planks,
Of course, anyone can reconcile almost an...Planks,<br /><br />Of course, anyone can reconcile almost any inconsistency if they are prepared to make up extra details without foundation. But even having given yourself artistic licence to imagine a precipice where none is mentioned and a fall from...whatever it is that you are picturing over the precipice, still your story doesn't hang (no pun intended) together.<br /><br />1. Did Judas return the money (Matthew) or use it to buy this field "on the edge of the precipice" (Acts)?<br />2. If he hung himself and fell down a precipice, in what way does that fit with falling headlong in a field? Unless he hung himself upside down, he was going to fall feet first. And if it was a precipice why does Acts make no mention of the precipice, only the field?<br />3. Was the field called "The Field of Blood" because it was bought with blood money (Matthew) or because it was where Judas' bowels burst open(Acts)?<br />4. Why would you call the <i>field</i> the field of Blood if all the blood was down in the precipice? The Valley of Blood or the Ravine of Blood might give some support to your story, but it would still be inconsistent with Matthew.<br /><br />If you start from the position that whatever is in the NT is true, then of course you can imagine things which explain apparent contradictions. But that's all it is - your imagination creating extra bits in the story with no better justification than that it "must" have happened like that because you cannot allow that the NT could be wrong.franceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16679842803715180697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53930410211731647412014-02-09T14:04:18.156-07:002014-02-09T14:04:18.156-07:00You wrote, "Disbelief is the default position...You wrote, "Disbelief is the default position in all cases"<br /><br />Frances, that's a nice slogan, but the problem is it's basically meaningless. Take the example I used earlier. Here is a statement: <b>"My wife is faithful to me."</b> Now, according to the above slogan, I must, as my default position, disbelieve this until she somehow proves her faithfulness. (Good luck with <i>that</i> as a basis for a happy marriage!)<br /><br />Or perhaps you'll punt here to your caveat "except where we are talking about properly basic beliefs". So is my wife's faithfulness now a "properly basic belief"?<br /><br />Well. That may solve your problem in the short term. (Admittedly, it would make for a lot more happy marriages!) But eventually you'll run up against this next statement <b>"My wife is cheating on me."</b> Oh, my! Now my "default position" is to disbelieve the very opposite of what I was disbelieving up above. What to disbelieve? What to disbelieve?<br /><br />This whole idea of disbelief being somehow a default position reminds me of an old game we used to play way back in grade school. We'd write on one side of a sheet of paper, <b>"The statement on the other side of this paper is true."</b> Then we'd turn the paper over and write, <b>"The statement on the other side of the paper is false."</b> We'd hand the paper over to an unsuspecting third party and ask (it doesn't matter which side is up when you do this), "Is this statement true or false?"<br /><br />As you can see, disbelief as a default position involves an unresolvable paradox. It is a logical absurdity.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6601803220550437162014-02-09T13:26:41.638-07:002014-02-09T13:26:41.638-07:00Plank
"But that's not a contradiction at ...Plank<br /><i>"But that's not a contradiction at all; it's merely a differing arrangement of the same material, presented differingly for thematic reasons."</i><br /><br />What were Jesus's actual last words on the cross before he died? Is there any difference in the Gospels of what he actually said? Any if there are any differences were those actual words presented differingly for thematic reasons?Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.com