The BIble Fails ...

This is rather lengthy and I apologize from the beginning for that. I wrote this in Word and thought I would share it here. Despite its length, I am certain I did not cover everything nor did I get everything right, but I thought I would pass this off for thought. I will post my rather lengthy document in the next post.

For the Christian, the Bible is the book that tells them all that they need to know about god, life, the afterlife and the hows and whys of it all. This is why it is so important for so many Christian denominations to establish that the Bible is without error, was preserved by god and inspired by the very spirit of god as he breathed upon the very authors of the sacred text. For most Protestants and Baptists, for example, the Bible and god are so closely linked that belief in the one is to believe in the other. This can be established biblically.

For example, the Bible says that god created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them and that he did so by his spoken word (and god said, let there be light). Later in the book of Genesis, Abraham had a question of doubt. God gave an answer and Abraham believed the word of god. As a result, the Bible records that god "counted it to him for righteousness" and Abraham was made righteous before god by his faith in god's word. As we approach the New Testament, we find that the "word of god" becomes forever linked with the person of Jesus of Nazareth. In John chapter 1, for example, we are told:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1

And in verse 14 of the same chapter we read:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And thus the Bible presents Jesus as the word of god in human flesh. Just as righteousness before god was achieved by Abraham by his faith in god's word, in like manner, according to the New Testament, a man is made righteous by his faith in Jesus, the word of god.

From this we can see that both Testaments teach the way to god (through righteousness) is the same: faith in the word of god.

The Bible is proclaimed to be the very word of god. Because god is declared to be perfect and without error, then it would stand to reason that his word would also be perfect and without error. Jesus, the word of god, is declared to be without sin and to be perfect and without error (after all, he is "the truth"). God, Jesus and the written word are so closely linked together that it is difficult to talk about the one without talking about the other. It would stand to reason that the Bible, if it is the very word of god, would, in like manner, be perfect, spotless and without error. If the pages of the holy writ could be proven to contain error then what would that say about god himself?

There are those that believe that they do not need to accept all of the Bible. For example, some people accept the moral code of the Bible, but reject the miracles recorded therein. On what grounds do they do this? Human reasoning? Because they do not "believe" in miracles? What criteria do they use to make such assumptions? How can a mere man weed through what is proposed to be the very words of god and determine what he did and did not say? How can a mere mortal determine, with certainty, what is the word of god and what is not? Wouldn't the one that says a certain passage in the Bible is not from god, be god (or at least claim to be) in order for them to know for certain that the particular passage was not from god? Or could it be that they have a source outside of the Bible itself that helps them to determine what is and is not from the mouth of god? And if a source, how can it be known if this source is divine or simply another imagination of man?

While I don't claim to know the answers to all of that, I do want to examine the concept of the veracity of the Bible. Whether a person believes in the inerrancy of the Bible or not, all who claim to be "Christian" rely , to some degree, on the pages of this book to determine what they know about god and how he functions in the affairs of men. This is why it is so important to examine the Scriptures to see if there is any error within. If god is perfect and his word is perfect and Jesus and the word are so closely linked together, then you would expect perfection in his word. If there is error within, then what does that say about god? About Jesus? What does it say about the trust-worthiness of what we read in the pages of the Scriptures themselves?

In another thread, some challenged me on the basis of logic to defend my position about why I no longer believe in the god of the Bible nor in his Christ. While I will not speak of all the reasons, I would like to address some of them. I will begin with a common prophecy that most Christians know. While this prophecy is not the crux of what I believe (or don't believe) I think it is a decent starting point. We will begin by looking at Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth as found in Isaiah 7:14:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

When one reads this verse it seems obvious that this is speaking of Jesus. And the Apostle Matthew would agree:

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. -Matthew 1:22-23

For most people, this is the end of the line. If the Bible says it, that settles it! However, what if Matthew is in error? What if Isaiah 7:14 is not speaking about Jesus at all? Let's go back and examine the verse in Isaiah to see what it is all about.

It would help to put it in a bit of context. If we begin reading in the very first verse of Isaiah chapter seven, then we can find out what is going on.

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, [that] Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind. - Isaiah 7:1-2

As can be seen from the verses above, Rezin, king of Syria and Pekah, king of Israel, were planning to go to war against Jerusalem. In those days, the nation of Israel had split into two kingdoms. The northern kingdom was called Israel and the southern, Judah. Jerusalem was the capital city of Judah. As we can see from these verses, the two northern kings had banded together with the purpose of setting out to destroy the capital city of Judah. Ahaz, the current king of Judah, was afraid as he was very much outnumbered. Because god, according to the verses that follow, wanted to calm the fears of Ahaz and let him know that god was with Judah, he sent to Ahaz the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah was to tell Ahaz not to fear:

And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. - Isaiah 7:4

God went even further and told Isaiah to ask Ahaz to declare a sign that god would perform in order to further help Ahaz know that god was with him (verse 11). Ahaz refused and god, a bit angry, determines to give him a sign of his own choosing:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. - Isaiah 7:14

This is the context of the passage ... or most of it. We will examine what comes after verse 14 a bit further on. Before getting too deeply into the passage, it might be helpful to know when this was all taking place. According to Bible commentaries, Ahaz ruled in Judah in the early 700's B.C. (about 720 +/-). So the events that we are reading about take place about 700 years before Christ was born. This is important to keep in mind.

This brings up an immediate question: How does Isaiah 7:14 apply to Ahaz if the promise is not to be fulfilled some 700 years later? In other words, if the sending of Isaiah and the sign given were to comfort the heart of Ahaz because of the enemy that was about to attack him, how could a prophecy about someone that would be born 700 years later accomplish that? Please keep this in mind as we examine the passage in context a bit further.

One thing that is interesting is that many will stop at verse 14 and do not even think about the verses that follow. However, verse 14 is not in a vacuum. In fact, one vital rule of interpreting Scripture is context. It is imperative that the student of the Bible examine any passage within the context in which it was written. And, yet, many seem to violate this principle when it comes to Isaiah 7:14. Could this be because an honest evaluation of the passage would show that Mattew was wrong and the passage does not apply to Jesus of Nazareth? We shall see.

Let's begin by adding verses 15 and 16 onto verse 14:

hey dan, lots of it didn't make it through (look at your last line "Let's begin by adding verses 15 and 16 onto verse 14:").

i'm very keen to see what else you have to say, especially since your writing demonstrates you've had a very good understanding of your (late) faith.

julz

Dan,
Is this supposed to be an error because you apply the law of contradiction to it? What do you know about the law of contradiction Dan, is it physical in your brain? Can you demonstrate that everything must be subject to the law of contradiction? Is it a convention among men? Maybe then I can stipulate a law that says the law of contradiction is not universal and invarient. You have no hope Dan.

You obviously didn't spend alot of time in prayer seeking God to 'open your understanding that you might understand the scriptures'. You of course will have Jesus (as in Lk.24) misinterpreting the bible. Dan the prophecy of the scripture has multiple layers so that a verse which historically was a reference to David in the psalms will also be a prophecy of Christ, will also be a prophecy of Israel in the tribulation and yet will be a comfort to believers today. Psalm 69 is an example.
If you studied the Old Testament you should understand types, shadows, similtudes, figures etc. God spoke by the prophets in times past in "divers manners". Jesus likewise spoke in parables to confound those wise in their own conceit. You are demonstrating how exact it works. He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

p.s. Can you get to the point a bit faster? Your attacks on the bible are as long as your sermons.

Almost as dry too. It's easier to read, as you can at least read at your own pace. I think maybe he thinks he shall be heard for his much speaking.

Poor Dan here is attempting to put human limitations on God. What's worse, since he can only comprehend what he's been taught about the supposed correct methods of Bible interpretation (my words not his), he limits himself strictly to the accepted methods of Bible interpretation (use a very deep, scholarly sounding voice when saying that). It's just too bad many of today's "scholarly" methods of Bible interpretation are not God's methods, but those created by man. And anything man touches is corrupt (it's evolution in action folks). The emphasis on the extra-Biblical historical data is a definite flaw in Dan's teachings I've heard on SermonAudio as well as in this post so far. People who reject the Bible as perfectly preserved and accurate often tend to accept other data (like Bible commentators or Church fathers or secular historians) as fact, or at least give them more weight than the Bible. Even Dan, as a God denying, Bible rejecting, heretic has no problem using Bible commentators as a valid source for the time frame in which Isaiah was writing, then rejecting the prophetical application of the verse (in other words picking and choosing what he wants to believe). This is the unfortunate plight of the Laodicean church age we live in. Bible rejectors from the pulpit beget Bible rejectors in the pews (beget more Bible rejectors from the pulpit....and on and on it goes).

Daniel (not to be confused with the Dan in this thread) answered and said, Blessed be the name of God forever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:

Dan, since you may never get to the point at the rate you are going, could you try to (briefly) tell us who is the son born to the virgin in Isaiah 7:14?

The only wise thing left to do is to ignore these dorks.

Thump, Thump, Thump...
All Dan is trying to do is explain himself and all The ChristToddSchultz symbiote is trying to d0 is summon Shai-Hulud here too.

Sometimes I get the feeling that ChrissTodd und Schultz are the same person. But maybe it is the Matrix or they just share the same consciousness.

Since they almost every time talk to each other - they could do it in private as well.

I'm sorry, which of these is "perfectly preserved and accurate"?


(AAT) The Complete Bible: An American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, 1939.
(ABT) The Afro Bible Translation
(ATB) The Alternate Translation Bible
(ASV) American Standard Version (purchase ASV)
(AB) The Amplified Bible (editions for sale)
(ALT) Analytical-Literal Translation
(ASL) American Sign Language Translation
(AV) Authorized Version (same as KJV)
(Bar) The New Testament: A New Translation, by William Barclay
(BLB) The Better Life Bible
(BWE) Bible in WorldWide English
The Bible Gateway Translation Information (see BWE description)
(CCB) Christian Community Bible
(CE) The Common Edition: New Testament
(CJB) Complete Jewish Bible
Comparison with NIV
(CV) Concordant Version
(CEV) Contemporary English Version
CEV online
Energion review
Interview: On the Shoulders of King James
Ken Anderson review
Michael Marlow review
Tyndale website overview
(Dar) Darby
(DR) Douay-Rheims
(DRP) David Robert Palmer's translations of the gospels
(EMTV) English Majority Text Version
(ENT) Extreme New Testament (revision of Simple English Bible, below)
Forward, by Tommy Tenney
(ERV) Easy-to-Read Version
(ESV) English Standard Version
(FF) Ferrar Fenton Bible
(GLW) God's Living Word
(GNC) God's New Covenant: A New Testament Translation, by Heinz W. Cassirer
(GNT) Good News Translation [formerly, (GNB) Good News Bible, and (TEV) Today's English Version]
(GW) God's Word
God's Word online
Review of God's Word, by Wayne Leman
(HCSB) Holman Christian Standard Bible (online, see Access Bibles section, below
article
(HNV) Hebrew Names Version
(ICB) International Children's Bible (children's version of the NCV)
(ISB) International Standard Bible (formerly titled The Simple English Bible)
(ISV) The International Standard Version
ISV Naturalness and Comprehension Survey, by Phil Fields
(JBP) New Testament in Modern English, by J.B. Phillips
New Testament in Modern English, Revised, by J.B. Phillips
Student edition
The J. B. Phillips Translation: A Guided Tour
(JNT) Jewish New Testament: A Translation of the New Testament That Expresses Its Jewishness (see Complete Jewish Bible)
(JPS) Jerusalem Publication Society: Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text

(KJV) King James Version and recent revisions
KJV
Translators to the Reader

(DKJB) Defined King James Bible
DKJB reviewed by Joseph Ng
DKJB reviewed by David W. Cloud
(KJII) King James Version II (renamed to Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)
(KJ21) King James for the 21st Century
KJV21 review
(KJ2000) King James 2000
(LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (formerly named King James II)
LITV download site
The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible Frequently Asked Questions
(MKJV) Modern King James Version
alternate site
MKJV download site
(NKJV) New King James Version
(RAV) Revised Authorised Version (British edition of the NKJV), review
(RKJV) Revised King James New Testament
(TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
(UKJV) Updated King James Version

(LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (see under KJV and recent revisions)
(LB) Living Bible
(MAEV) Modern American English Vernacular
discussion list for MAEV
(MLB) Modern Language Bible: New Berkeley Version
(Mof) Bible: James Moffatt Translation (amazon.com)
(NAB) New American Bible
"The New American Bible": A Voice From the Past
(NAB) New American Bible (access entire Bible)
(NASB) New American Standard Bible
What is the philosophy of translation set forth by The Lockman Foundation?
New Berkeley Version (see Modern Language Bible)
(NCV) New Century Version
(NEB) New English Bible
(NET) New English Translation
NET Bible online
Try the NET Bible! (a critique)
An Open Letter Regarding The NET Bible, New Testament (a reply to the critique)
(NET) New Evangelical Translation
(NIrV) New Internation Reader's Version
(NIV) New International Version
The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation
(NJB) New Jerusalem Bible
(NKJV) New King James Version (see under KJV and recent revisions)
(NLV) New Life Version
(NLT) New Living Translation
The Living Bible Reborn
Re: New Living Translation (a review)
(NRSV) New Revised Standard Bible
NRSV critiqued by John H. Dobson
(NWT) New World Translation (published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of the Jehovah's Witnesses)
(OBP) The Original Bible Project
(OSB) Orthodox Study Bible
(ONT) The Original New Testament: The First Definitive Translation of the New Testament in 2000 Years, by Hugh Schonfield
(PMB) Postmodern Bible - Amos
(Rec) Recovery Version
(REB) The Revised English Bible (revision of NEB)
(RSV) Revised Standard Version
(RV) Revised Version, 1885
(RYLT) Revised Young's Literal Translation
(Sch) The Schocken Bible
(SEB) The Simple English Bible
(SENT) Spoken English New Testament
(TM) The Message
A Summary Critique: The Message, by John R. Kohlenberger III
(TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
(TEV) Today's English Version [see (GNT) Good News Translation]
Book Review: Today's English Version (TEV)
(TNIV) Today's New International Version
TNIV website
TNIV Debate Between Dr. Wayne Grudem and Dr. Mark Strauss
TNIV links
(Tyn) Tyndale
(Wey) Weymouth
Preface to the First Edition
(WEB) World English Bible
(Wms) The New Testament in the Language of the People, by Charles B. Williams (another website)
(WNT) Wesley's New Testament
(Wuest) The New Testament (An Expanded Translation) purchase
Yes Word (update of Tyndale translation)
(YLT) Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (download entire text)
view Young's Literal Translation of the Bible
Preface to the First Edition

ChrisTodd/Schultz: Welcome to my forum. You can discuss any topics here, but must follow the forum rules. They do not allow ad hominem attacks or arguments. Should you have something specific to say about the topic theme, just bring it forward. But personal remarks or insults against another member are not tolerated. Consider this a friendly warning. Next time it's a ban.

It's obvious that they think very much alike.. theoretically they could be one person indeed though, I must admit.

Phemox: this of course applies to _all_ participants.

jcl,
Are insults like Joozey and MachineryFrank ok? I thought I was following protocol.

jcl,
Ok I see your response to Phemox, we'll try to keep it on a more formal level.
Thanks

That's the one, right there.

Is the long list of per-versions supposed to strike fear in our hearts. 200+ people could take up the notion to revise Shakespeare if they wanted to. Would that mean the one true, perfect word of Shakespeare would cease to exist? Of course not.

God preserved his word in English through the King James Bible, without error.

True perfect word of Shakespeare? You do know he had a habit of actually stealing/borrowing other people's work? Also.. unlike the Bible, Shakespeare's work was originally written in (albeit a bit older version of..) English.



Because God was born in modern times and was raised with English???

Last time I checked, wasn't the 'word' given to people in Hebrew and later translated into English and so on?

I apologize for being blunt, but I find your statements rather ironic.

Cheers

What is the history behind the KJV? What was the procedure under which is was fabricated?

I've done my internet research on the subject, but I'd like to not rely on the internet and hear what your opionions or facts are on the subject of the creation of this version of the bible. Please emphasize how this procedure created an "error free" translation (keyword: "the telephone game") as well as what the political, social, and religious environment of the time was in order to provide some context to the procedure.

Well, if you had paid attention to the modern English, I said he preserved His word. BTW, God was not born period, He is from everlasting to everlasting.

The point in the Shakespeare example was not whether the words he originally penned were good/perfect, it was whether or not we have the words he originally penned.

The example fails in many areas, since it leaves the preservation (or keeping) up to man. God's word was preserved by Him (he did not leave it up to man to preserve His word perfect through the ages and into different languages). It's nothing for the creator of the universe to do this though.

Again, could you please provide me with a history of how the KJV came to be and how man was NOT part of the preservation process?

Dan,
The prophecy in Isaiah 7 is twofold. There was a sign given of a young virgin who would have gotten married and had a son whom they named Immanuel which means God with us (Isa.8:8-10). The Jews knew God spoke in types and similitudes and shadows.
But since the scriptures are about Christ who was to come, as with most prophecies (the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy-Rev.19:10) there is a view of a literal and more significant understanding. The Holy Ghost had revealed to the Jews that there would be a "seed of the woman" Gen.3:15. He proceeded further to show them he would come through Judah (Gen.49:10). He showed David he would come from his loins but he would be the son of God. This is another example of a prophecy which has Solomon and Jesus Christ in view. See 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, and 2 Samuel 7:12-16. Jesus was the son of David but God was his father. How would God be to him a father- he would be conceived by a virgin. It would be in Bethlehem that this would happen but he would have no beginning of days (Heb.7:3) but would be "from everlasting"- Micah 5:2
Isaiah further revealed that this son who is conceived in a virgin would be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God the everlasting Father and the Prince of Peace (9:6) This is why his name was called Immanuel- God with us (7:14).

OK, I'll rephrase (although I think it's implied), He does use man in the preservation process, but is not limited to man's limitations of accuracy. He providentially guided the process in other words, therefore it was not up to man to ensure His word came to us unscathed.

And no, I will not provide you with a history of how the KJV came to be, I'm sure your research is adequate. I'm in no way, shape, or form attempting to defend the history or procedures of the translation. I will stand by the product of that translation, however, and defend it without batting an eyelash.

Thank you, Schultz. Conversations about the bible are much more productive when they are non-self-referencial (ie: scripture quotes, ie "thumping")



Now then, if we agree that as stated in Authorized KJV from Wikipedia that...




...then how do you prevent "the telephone effect" which occurs even with ONE translator?

Furthermore, how do we know that it was god telling king and these 47 scholars what was canon and what was not? If we assume these translators where guided by the holy spirit, then that is but one possibility. There are three possibilities here as I see it:

1) god though the holy spirit guided king and scholar
2) devil talked and guided king and scholar
3) socioeconomic force guided king and scholar
4) Church of England talked and guided king and scholar
5) king talked and guided sholar
6) nobody guided king and scholar

Thus, to assume that it was god through the holy spirit that guided the hand of king and scholar in this translation is but one of the many possibilities and I'm curious as to why you have chosen to believe #1 and dismiss all the rest.

Despite having difficulties following your logic of how a God would even care about books and how he would have to be a puppet master (what happened to 'free will' there?), your analogy was flawed to begin with. Shakespeare's work is hardly comparable to the Bible in terms of age, origin and preservation, as all originals were lost long before the KJV version was even made.

( On a lighter side note, this is what happens when you put too much value in a certain piece of literature: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin )

Cheers

Phemox,
How do you define free will?

I have chosen #1 and dismissed all the rest, because it is logical and rational to presuppose God. It follows logic to believe in His word as a revelation to his creation, and a perfect Bible that reflects God's nature as well. I have found the King James Bible to be that perfect revelation. You will doubtless reject that.

You will likely say you reject this because in your opinion it is illogical. However, for you to use logic you must borrow from my world view (biblical Christianity). How can there be any universal logic, since your mind is completely separate from mine. In an atheist world view, you cannot account for the laws of logic, laws of morality, or laws of science. You cannot account for universal laws (as an atheist) existing in a materialistic (from an atheists point of view), purely natural universe (which I have to assume you believe). I can. I don't have any problems accounting for them. The laws of logic, science, and morality reflect the nature of Almighty God, the creator of heaven and earth.

Psa 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

I know, you don't like scripture quotes. I don't much care for atheist quotes either, but I deal with it a lot in forums.

The "telephone effect" may be a problem if Almighty God was not overseeing and guiding and preserving down through history. But he is (see Psa 12:6-7).

I hardly think it logical to believe in the bible simply because it is the only thing with any definite answers. It certainly FEELS good to a lot of people, but many people, including myself, are not going to base our beliefs one what feels good. The truth rarely feels good, but that's a part of humanity losing its sweet innocence.

Agnostics, unlike other groups, have accepted the fact that they don't know the answers. I tend to think anyone who assumes they have the answers is far too presumptuous, and has far too much confidence in their own understanding, which everyone agrees, christian or no, is flawed. Although a believer in the bible may say that agnostics or atheists 'lean upon the understand of men', the truth is that they simply don't lean on what they have read or heard, because they, rightfully so, are not quick to trust a pile of words and the word of mouth from human beings as fallible as they are.

To simply... believe anything... one must have faith that there is no contradictory force, that the object of their belief cannot be wrong. You may say that the bible is perfect in all ways (whether it is or not). Theoretically, a well written fiction novel cannot be proven wrong either, as long as it exactly follows its own logic and does not contradict anything we 'know' to be true. The truth of something like that can be as real and solid as you want it to be, until someone points out that a human wrote it. Of course, like the atheist, I recognize that that work of fiction has names attached to it. Fallible human beings. And therefore, it cannot be fully trusted, whether it is 'perfect' or not.

If God's truth were as perfect and unquestionable as you say, he wouldn't need a bible to make his existence, or his teachings, known to us. They would simply be obvious to everyone.


I'll provide a couple conundrums that tend to keep me doubting (without bringing up the 'could god make a rock so heavy even he couldn't carry it' bit):


1) (this kind of is three questions that relate): If nothing in this universe can defy god's will, why is Satan allowed to do what he does to non-believers, as well as tempt believers, when using our god-given free will is merely the use of a gift. Why give a gift like that, and make us suffer for using it? Sounds like a game to me. (Set rules, allow for there to be winners and losers, define what makes you win, and what makes you lose, and see who the best of us are). Seems crappy to me, allowing human beings to be fallible, but then punishing them for eternity for being fallible. Also why can't he look upon 'sin'? Sins seem to be things that... he just doesn't LIKE. That's really what defines a sin to me. Which leads into the next big question:

2) Is what is 'good', good because God says it is?

Or is 'good' an unchangeable force, fundamental, universal?

It's a trick question.

If what is good, is good because god says it is, then we are following an arbitrary idea of good, which could change if god wanted to change it. How can that idea of good be considered solid morals to live by? At that point, you are merely following your leader, and not his ideals. As you are taught, God does not change, so... paradox. Why simply follow an all powerful being (besides fear) if in another universe it could very well be considered good to kill and steal. And you believers, in that universe, would be killers and thieves, if that's what god wanted from you.

We obviously would like to think of good as universal, fundamental. But if what is good, is good because it is universal and not just 'What God Says, Goes', then that means God is merely a messenger, an enforcer of good. In which case, all the believers seem to be worshiping the wrong entity. If what is good, is good without God, then why have God in the equation at all? Why not just be good people, live well, and die satisfied with your life?


Anyhow, these are the kind of thoughts that lead me away from my christian upbringing, and I guarantee more will follow, because god's presence is NOT so undeniable that we cannot deny it. If it were, we would all be believers.

One should believe what they believe because they believe it, not because they were taught it, forced by our parents to think it's true. And I, like many, refuse to let fear govern my beliefs. I will never believe in god simply because I'm afraid I may go to hell, there is not merit in that. I'm sure if god is real that he would appreciate my actual faith, built entirely upon my own shoulders.

To me it's the same as finally realizing there is no Santa. I trusted my sources, my parents, my friends, fallible human beings, songs and movies, and because of my short-sightedness, my innocence, my complete unquestioning faith, I believed he was real, and tried to be a good boy, so that I got what I wanted at christmas. Just imagine... your parents, friends, songs and movies, are your bible. Santa is your God. Christmas is your inevitable death. And your present is heaven.

Be a good boy.

ArtimusBena,
If this type of sophistry led you away from your Christian upbringing maybe you should reconsider a few things. You had a lengthy post so maybe we can deal with the issues one or two at a time.
You said "If God's truth were as perfect and unquestionable as you say, he wouldn't need a bible to make his existence, or his teachings, known to us. They would simply be obvious to everyone."
You forget one tenet of your Christian upbringing- sin. Sin defiles our mind and conscience and darkens our foolish heart.
Let me ask you briefly why it is that people get math problems wrong, disagree on scientific laws, kill each other in war, lie etc.? Or consider this, logic is something that everyone must presuppose in order to think. Why is it that logicians and philosophers disagree on what logic is, and which are laws of logic?

By the way the old "could god make a rock so heavy even he couldn't carry it' bit" is not a valid question as it presupposes God within time and space like a man. Or to 'change the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man'(Rom.1)

Please showcase this logic you speak of without scriptures. It has to be without scriptures for the use the object that you are trying to prove in your proof leads to a circular argument which is not logical.

For example, I can argue that Harry Potter is real because the book tells me it's real. The Harry Potter books are teh uncontested and error free account of the life of Harry Potter. But, if I don't use the books, then there is no evidence that he is real and thus I come to the logical conclusion that outside of the books, Harry Potter does not exist.

In the same vein, you argue that god is real because the bible tells you that he's real. But, if I don't use the bible as in the Harry Potter example, then like Harry Potter, there is no evidence that he is real and thus we come to the logical conclusion that outside of the bible, god does not exist.

In counterdistinction, my physics text tells me that objects in a vacuum accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. Now, if I don't use my physics textbook, I can go out and find independent evidence that the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. Thus I come to the logical conclusion that this value is "real" since it is independent of the book I first encountered it.

Finally, if your logic is that the bible is error free and thus this qualifies it as divine, then the Koran is MORE error free as it is written in the original language from whece it was received. So logically if you have two books claiming divine will, one a translation of a collection of divine texts and another a non-translated single text, then logically the Koran is closer to god's word than the bible. Thus by your own logic, you have CHOSEN to believe in the bible IN SPITE of your own logic which tells you there are more direct words of god out there.

fastlane69,
What you are not realizing is that your question is related to worldviews. For example you say that I cannot use the bible to prove it otherwise it is circular reasoning and illogical. Now how would you prove logic? If you proceed to use logic to prove it you engage in circular reasoning and become illogical.
You will need to appeal to something else. What do you appeal to next? This is where you appeal to your worldview/religion which everyone has by necessity. You must appeal to your philosophy/religion to account for logic science and morality. You will find the God of the bible becomes the only valid precondition.

That's the problem exactly, it's possible to give an entirely wrong explanation to things that, for all you can SEE, is perfect in its explanation, but once it is truly examined it becomes obvious it isn't the right answer. You're leaning on your understanding, and confusing the 'easy' answers with correct ones.

Now about making god out to be 'of this world' and in our image, etc.: He's god. He pervades all existence. He is us. Therefore the passage you quoted contradicts god. The fact is that he can make a rock, no? He is a part of all existence, no? Therefore, he can make a heavy rock, and in some fashion, him being GOD, can lift this rock, if he so chooses. Ya can't just be GOD, and able to do anything you wish in any scenario, and then have someone write in the bible that there's a certain light we cannot see him in. He should be in all lights. Besides, Jesus is the 'image' of a corruptible man. (You're going to say NO, HE'S NOT CORRUPTIBLE. Yeah well neither is god and we're in HIS 'image', no?)


I would be FINE if the nature of god were stated in the bible as contradictory, to our understanding because our understanding doesn't work the same as god's existence. If it were stated so, I would have much less to doubt about it all. All the problems I find in the bible would be fixed. It would be the... oh what did you call it... the only valid precondition?

So we agree that circular reasoning, be it with the bible or logic, is illogical. You can't use that which you are trying to prove as part of the proof. Good.

Thus now that we agree that we cannot use the bible to prove the validity of the bible, we are left with this way of dealing with the bible...



... which is subjective and reafirms my point that it is your worldview that KJV is divinly inspired, not fact and not a global truth.


And this is why using the bible fails as a global worldview: it is strictly within your personal worldview and thus cannot be used to "lift" itself upto a global worldview in the same manner that you cannot "lift" yourself up by grabbing your feet with both hands and pulling up. This is why I say that you cannot use scriptures to prove the validity of the scriptures; that would be trying to lift yourself up with your own two hands or more accuratey using the bible to prove the validity of the bible.

Since we can't use logic according to you and we can't use personal worldviews according to me, may I suggest The Scientific Method as an impartial, non-circular way to compromise and address these issues?

ArtimusBena,
Forgive me but I do not see how this is connected to my last post. Could you respond to this:
"Let me ask you briefly why it is that people get math problems wrong, disagree on scientific laws, kill each other in war, lie etc.? Or consider this, logic is something that everyone must presuppose in order to think. Why is it that logicians and philosophers disagree on what logic is, and which are laws of logic?"
Do you understand what I am asking?

fastlane69,
We agree logic cannot justify itself, but worldview evaluation is not therefore subjective. Your remark "By your statement, logic cannot be used when dealing with the bible since it cannot be proven. Hence we agree that circular reasoning, be it with the bible or logic, is illogical. Good." completely misses my point. I think logic must be used to understand the bible as it is written logically by God whose nature is completely logical. My point was simply that you want to reject the bible which you claim is circular and not hold your own view to the same standard. You also fail to appreciate the difference between logic within a worldview and logic AS a worldview. Worldviews (all of them) are circular by necessity. This is different than the simple logical fallacy of begging the question. Logic is to be understood within a worldview. For me it is the bible, for you it is not expressed. Perhaps you have not thought about it, so this would be a good time to briefly clarify how logic makes sense (does not defy itself) within your worldview. And also justify how logic can be universal and invarient within your worldview. If logic is not accounted for cogently within your worldview you must relenquish using logic or use the Christian worldview.

You state "your worldview that KJV is divinly inspired, not fact and not a global truth."
You are confusing me with Schultz- I haven't introduced this proposition.

""Let me ask you briefly why it is that people get math problems wrong, disagree on scientific laws, kill each other in war, lie etc.? Or consider this, logic is something that everyone must presuppose in order to think. Why is it that logicians and philosophers disagree on what logic is, and which are laws of logic?" ""

Because we are subjective beings, and our respective, as well as collective, understanding is varied, and therefore not universal. And neither is the bible; whether or not it in itself is perfect and without flaw, our varied perspectives affect our perception of those words.

We get math problems wrong because our minds are different; some people are better suited for mathematical thinking. We disagree on scientific laws because we all have different perspectives on the causes of things. We kill each other in war because some of us want more than what we were given. We lie because it allows us to do what we want without the consequences.

Without god or anything that goes with that belief, it is possible that we would be the exact same way that we are now. Who's to know for certain? You can't just memorize a book and claim to have a better understanding of the whys and hows.

ArtimusBena,
To say that we are wrong because we are subjective beings destroys why we can ever be right, because we are still subjective beings. So this does not explain anything, nor justify any knowledge. In other words if we are subjective beings and this makes us wrong then what makes us right?
'We get math problems wrong because our minds are different' also has the same dilemma; how do we then get math problems right? Our minds are still different. How do people better suited get math problems wrong then? Because they are subjective beings? Try again.
You state:
"Without god or anything that goes with that belief, it is possible that we would be the exact same way that we are now. Who's to know for certain?"
The way define possiblity is based upon your religion/philosophy. This may be a good time for you to clarify what that is.
Plus in response to "who's to know for certain?"; well we are subjective beings with different minds you state. I guess we can conclude that no one can therefore know anything for certain in your worldview. This is a good example of where your worldview exhibits incoherence, for you would 'know' for certain that you couldn't conclude anything for certain. As you can see your worldview destroys itself.

Then unlike Schultz, you do not hold the KJV to be divinly inspired or it is not your bible of choice?

"I guess we can conclude that no one can therefore know anything for certain in your worldview"


Precisely my point. There is no such thing as knowledge, not even the knowledge that there is no such thing. We cannot trust our own minds.

Therefore, we have bigger questions than 'is there a god'. Like, is there ... anything. The difference between myself and a 'believer' is, whatever I'm saying, I'm saying it with the perspective that everything I say can never be truly correct. When you say something, you say it with certainty, and that I envy, but I will never be able to assume that the answers given to me by other, equally flawed human beings, are the right ones, considering that not even I have any real idea of the truth. Being human though, I cannot help but reject the idea of a god. At least, the god that human beings have fallibly described to me through text and word of mouth. I must see it through the eyes of reason to understand it for myself to put the words into any perspective. That, again, is why I am myself far from perfect.

In the end, pretty much all of us seem to NEED certainties, but where we differ is this: you search for black and white, I search for contradictions to both. It's neither bad or good, it simply is, but any belief not tested to the full extent with the willingness to be wrong, is not a belief, but an assumption, based on dust and fancy.

ChrisTodd, define your logic please. I fear that the definition I use and your logic are not the same as the application of my logic is independent of my religious beliefs and personal opinions, ie my worldview.



How does the bible define your logic? In my case, it is clearly expressed in the form of math and/or symbolism.

ArtimusBena,
I'm not sure if I should be taking you seriously at this point. You state "Precisely my point. There is no such thing as knowledge, not even the knowledge that there is no such thing. We cannot trust our own minds."
Firstly- If there is no knowledge you should not know this. You do know this therefore your philosophy is wrong.
Secondly- If you cannot trust your mind then you should not know that you cannot trust your mind. You do know this therfore your philosophy is wrong.
You proceed to explain:
"I must see it through the eyes of reason to understand it for myself to put the words into any perspective."
You contradict your previous statements. Don't you see, you do know things and you will be accountable to God. You know things because he controls the universe and made you in his image. Your mind reflects his mind. This makes it possible for you to know things. You must use reason to think, you cannot do otherwise. This is only possible because of the purpose of the God of the bible.

I certainly do not speak for ChrisTodd, but it is my belief that only the original text of the sciptures is divinely inspired. The translations are best called educational interpretations. For the divine Word you must revert to the original texts.

Having said that I have not found many places in the Bible that differ from one version to another. The real trick is in studying the text systematically and not drawing out whole philosophical tirads based on a verse or two.

Proper studying requires learning the customs of the times in which a particular book was written, the type of book, poetic versus historical for example, and how similar themes are presented through out the Bible.

While I believe the Bible to be the word of God, ie divinely inspired, I do have many questions involving contradictory parts of the Bible. I have many problems with these passages being explained away with simple phrases like who can understand God or yes both statements that seem contradictory can be true, we just don't understand how. These statements undermine Christian believability.

I have no problem with saying I do not know what that means and can't explain it. After all that pretty much says the same thing mentioned above but is much more straight forward.

Sorry for jumping in, but KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV or whatever is not divinely inspired. The Hebrew texts of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament were divinely inspired in my belief. I also have questions that some of the texts included in the New Testament should even be considered scriptures. But I stand alone on that leg with in the Christian community as far as I know and I am not any knid of authority on this subject.

Nice conversation.

fastlane69,
In response to this:
"ChrisTodd, define your logic please. I fear that the definition I use and your logic are not the same as the application of my logic is independent of my religious beliefs and personal opinions, ie my worldview."
So are there different laws of logic ("my logic")? You absolutely cannot seperate logic from your religion or opinions. Let me say I agree generally with that definition, but I am justifying the possibility of laws of logic within the Christian framework. The laws of logic are not just there. They are not invarient, universal, abstract entities 'just because' as you seem to hold. They cannot justify themselves as you would need to assume them to prove them; which is circular and illogical. Math and logic are possible within the Christian worldview but not possible within your worldview. They don't make sense in your worldview which is why your worldview is wrong and needs to be scrapped.
And these are basic doctrines found in any version of the bible listed on that long list whoever posted it before.

Sorry Gentleman I must go to bed and pick this back up tommorrow. Thanks for your thoughts.

ChrisTodd,
I am willing to accept my human nature as contradictory, you are not; this is why I stated that you search for black and white. My ultimate goal is to redefine what black and white really are, at the heart. For instance I am willing to suppose that reason and understanding do not exist. They are equally as valid patterns of thought as any other, in my view. As I stated, when I say anything of any confidence, I say it with the supposition that I may be completely wrong. My humanity rejects your structure of belief, but I am always willing to accept the possibility that it is wrong to do so. This is why my particular life is filled with so much uncertainty, until I finally come to a (tentative) conclusion on things, one by one. It can be taken seriously or not, but it may just be the only way to get to the bottom of all this. I find it hard to accept that simply explaining everything away, allowing oneself to be assimilated into a snowball of like-thinkers, reading a text and just believing it, without any specific cause to believe that specific text, is the correct way to go.

But I am willing to accept that there are other possibilities. Our views may in fact be intertwined; perhaps we are both as close to being right as the other. There is a reason I don't call myself an atheist. I refuse to assume.

Logic is a procedure, independent of religion or opinion. You may not be aware of this, but this is a game engine forum for making (ie: programming) games. Thus we all understand logic in terms of "if/then" which applies no matter what my beliefs. This is why I think you have a unique definition of logic that is personal and not universal.



Not as far as I'm concerned which is why I ask you to define your version of logic. If your definition of logic and my (wikipedia) definition of logic are the same, then we have a common starting point from which we can better understand scripture and reality.




So are you saying that only christians with their christian worldviews can do or properly understand math and logic?
Or are you saying that my not being a christian nullifies all the math and logic I have learned?

There are many more people that think certain scriptures should be included and others excluded. It's just that nowadays people make a great fuzz about changing the Bible, it's not as easy as it used to be.

You should search the internet and libraries, there are actually quite a lot scholars who suggest to adapt the Bible on many points. They are also just about the only religious people I know who really admit the errors and contradictions that can be found in the Bible,



Wherever human error can be found, we can be sure it's either totally man made and made up or extensively edited by man through time. Considering the amount of different authors I doubt the whole 'they were divine inspired' thing anyways, but regardless of that.. it simply contains too many errors to be divine,

Cheers

fastlane69,
You misunderstand me when you say: "This is why I think you have a unique definition of logic that is personal and not universal."
I have stated emphatically that logic is universal and not simply subjective. Again you state:
"If your definition of logic and my (wikipedia) definition of logic are the same, then we have a common starting point from which we can better understand scripture and reality."
We agree that our worldviews must be logical, I am stating that yours is not logical because it cannot account for the laws of logic and science and your worldview should be scrapped.
To answer your question "So are you saying that only christians with their christian worldviews can do or properly understand math and logic?" Basically non-Christians can do math and use logic many times even better than Christians. But non-Christians cannot account for math and logic and their ability to use math and logic. When you are asked to explain how this is possible in an atheistic worldview you cannot; rather you end up contradicting yourselves and destroying logic and math and science and ethics.

ArtimusBena,
I agree that human nature is contradictory, in the Christian worldview sin dwells in our human nature which is why we die, get math problems wrong, misunderstand things etc. Sin is why your "humanity rejects" my Christian structure of belief. I do not agree that logic is simply in or from our human nature.
You are lost in agnosticism fighting against certainty. Logic is certain, and math is certain but you won't admit it even though you use them as though they are certain. I am trying to show you the reason why they are certain- the God of the bible. You are contradicting yourself and opposing yourself. On the one hand you use logic to try and cast out certainty; but you are certain you can do this because you are certain logic will certainly allow you to do this and you are certain that you are using logic correctly to arrive at these conclusions. You are certain that there is no certainty.
I am appealing to you to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the explanation for life and everything you experience in it. Because finally we will all appear before his judgment seat and give an account for what we did with the lives and minds he gave us. And it won't be a good thing if you continue to live in opposition to your own self interest.

Ohh hold on, logic is not at all synonymous for 'certainty'. Quite the opposite, as through logic many more questions rise. Questions that religious people, no offense, totally seem to ignore.



Perhaps I'm asking too much, but I'd really like you to explain why you think this is what will going to happen. From the perspective of logic and science, no one ever lived to tell what really happened. Not even Jesus actually.

A lot of religious people regularly raise their index finger in some kind of semi-angry way to say how 'we' the not religious infidels are fools because we do not believe in those roaring thunder speeches of preachers or texts within the Bible.

From a psychological point of view, I think most religious believers are just acting in a copy-cat way, as their whole belief system is based on a psychological form of social control. Of course, no one would ever really admit they have fallen for the peer pressure of the system.

Cheers

PHeMoX,
If you don't have a divine revelation (the bible) you cannot account for your life experience. Men are so corrupted by sin that they cannot even understand the bible correctly- thus all of the denominations and cults. But without the bible you cannot account for logic, science or morality. Notice I did not say you cannot be moral, scientific, or logical to some degree. But you cannot understand how it's possible.
And furthermore the bible teaches in Romans 1 that you know God absolutely from his created order and you do not like to retain him in your knowledge. Rather in your mind you change his image into an image made like to a corruptible man. Thus people claim the God of the bible is a dictator like Hitler or Stalin. Or God is a murderer or egomaniac etc. and slander and mock the source of logic, science, love, beauty.
Then they expect him to judge them according to their own moral judgments. Not going to work that way. God will judge in grave seriousness.

Of course you're assuming there will be a time at which everybody will have to account for their lives to begin with. All I'm asking here is 'why' do you think so.

I personally believe death is the only real penalty we can get as far as misbehaving in this world and then it's not even a real penalty as it's inevitably going to happen at some point in ones life anyways. Does this mean people can get away with a lot of evil things? Yes, definitely, but what's new?



There's one of those claims again. No offense, but how do you even know what God will think or what he is going to do? You dare to think for him, isn't that a sin as well?

Also, going by the Bible.. God seems to be a lot of personalities performing some kind of off-center balance act when it comes to good and evil. I do not think the Bible proves he's 'just' at all and I also think it's quite clear that in his wisdom he made at least some errors in his judgment along the way.

But I guess that's a matter of interpretation and my point of view on things.



Yes, true, however can't you see the irony when people make claims like 'God will do this' and 'God won't like that'????



What exactly do you mean here? Logic (in all it's different forms) provides quite a nice reference to how things make sense in this world. It's much more abstract, but in no way does not believing in God make things 'impossible' to understand. To tell you the truth, I don't really understand what you've meant with that sentence. You're saying I can act and do in the same ways (moral, scientific, logical etc.), but not understand my own actions? I'm sorry but that just sounds rather ridiculous to me.

It's like giving a name to a certain type of new method of movement and stating that the thing in question never really moved because it did not know what it's movement is called or caused by. Even though it does understand quite perfectly that it's legs or whatever are needed to be able to move.

I'll admit it's not the best analogy in the world, but it might give you an idea.

Cheers

PHeMoX,
"All I'm asking here is 'why' do you think so." Divine Revelation- the bible. The same revelation that gives us understanding of how logic and science are possible.
"I personally believe death is the only real penalty we can get" You cannot know this or anything about the afterlife and judgment without revelation. But if you reject the bible about these things you will also reject the justification for logic and science and morality.
"What exactly do you mean here?" I mean that your worldview cannot account for logic and science etc. You can score a 100% on a math test but in your philosophy this is not possible- therefore your philosophy is wrong and should be scrapped. The Christian can explain how a finite, particular, changing person can use the universal, infinite, invarient laws of logic accurately. In your worldview this is an impossibility, it doesn't make sense, and this is why your worldview should be obviously in error to you.

If by account you mean "To provide an explanation or justification for" then I don't take your meaning for my worldview most assuredly has explanations for how to use math and logic.

It is religion (all religions) that has no accounting of even the most basic mathematical statments, such as the different types of algebra and trigonometric functions or the basics of induction, deduction, or abduction.

What are these universal, infinite, invarient laws of logic?
Please list them without scripture for if they are "universal", then you should be able to paraphrase these laws independent of the source.

For example, if I were to explain the LHC's Higgs Boson experiement, I would rely on english and visuals and not present a equations that physicists use to describe the event. This is possible because physics is universal and thus can be explained in many ways aside from equations.

Likewise, if these laws are universal, you should be able to list these laws in many ways asided from scripture.

Christtodd, maybe I may add a quote by a famous Christian?

"Revelation can only be considered valid for the original recipient. When subsequently communicated by the recipient to a second person, it ceases to be a revelation but rather becomes a hearsay second hand account, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it." (Thomas Paine)

So, a revelation can indeed give you the feeling that you understand how logic and science works, or that God is talking in your head, or whatever. But as this can not be communicated to other persons its a poor argument in a discussion.

I'm afraid when you want to talk about logic or science you must use logical or scientific arguments, your "revelation" wont do.

Huh????

Oh, I missed this. Hmmmm...

Just to be sure, is what Spirit saying true? That god revealed to you a new math and logic and thus that is true above what 99.9% of the rest of the world call math and logic?

I suppose if you answer my previous post asking you to list these laws it will answer this queston.

1Co 2:4-8 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Well the rules of logic that we use are listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_deduction

Afraid, no single Bible reference in the whole article. Logic seems to be 100% Atheist.

I think the best wisdom and logic here is to stay far away from these types of discussions. But I understand that we get sucked into them from time to time...I am guilty of these silly ramblings at times also...

I can assure that the Bible does not fail on any test, and is true regardless of all the vain opinions of men that seem to spawn up like weeds everywhere.

Everyone,
Due to the high volume of similar replies let me say that the laws of logic (however many you stipulate) are self verifying. What you all are failing to realize is that this does not make sense without the God of the bible, Jesus Christ. That is your brains which are material manifesting immaterial laws. Your finite brains manifesting infinite laws. Your changing brains manifesting unchanging laws of logic. This is what we expcet within Christian understanding. This is absolutely impossible within your framework. The fact that you are having so much trouble understanding the dilemma is instructive.

I am not stating that people don't use the laws of logic and can't name them, they must because God made them in his image, and he 'put wisdom in the inward parts'. God says let us reason together. You are taking credit for your minds ability to use logic. Also the existence of logic you take advantage of but reject the source of logic- Jesus Christ.

SIn is corrupting your minds- and pride will keep you from acknowledging this. I am trying to bring it to your attention; that God is directly impressed upon all of your thoughts every moment and you reject him continually, you do not like to retain him in your knowledge. And to justify your rejection you make God out into an image that everyone would reject a corruptible man.

The same thing with science and morality. Science needs nature to be uniform and this is exactly what can only happen with the omnipotent power of God not random chance. The invisible things of God are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made even his eternal power and Godhead so that all of you are without excuse.
You claim the God of the bible is immoral and yet morality is nonsense in your worldview without the God of the bible. In short your minds are defiled and you are rejecting God every moment and he will judge everyone of us. It is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgment. Your only hope is Jesus Christ dying to forgive your sins and save you from deception and delusion. His resurrection from the dead is your only hope.
You guys better quit wasting all the time God has given you following sophistry, and science falsely so called. You will die very soon.

Interesting.

Well said

I have to admit that I do in fact agree with a lot of your statements, as they do seem to be derived directly from the scripture.

How can you say this if from http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=logic&version1=9&searchtype=all...

So again I ask you, are your logic and the definition of logic I use the same? In other words, is the definition of logic I use the same as the one you are using when you say "source of logic- Jesus Christ."?

If not, please be so kind as to list these laws to showcase how they are different from accepted standard.

So you are appealing to a wikipedia article as your definition of logic. Maybe Wikipedia is your equivalent to my Bible. Perhaps we should apply the same "second person revelation" standard to you that you suggest in your earlier post. I mean until you have proved all of the "rules of logic" listed on the Wikipedia article personally, it's just hearsay. How do you know that what is said there is logical anyway? Well by using logic of course. This is using circular reasoning if you claim this.

How is so difficult to understand the problem Atheists face? The laws of logic (we'll use the information contained in said Wiki article as an example) in your opinion are true, because they are true/logical. But where did logic come from? A big bang? Billions of years of evolution not only brought about everything from nothing, but also managed to cause chemicals in peoples brains that give them logic and understanding which is universally understandable? And science and math verifies all this because they use logic? Boy, that's genius. What irrefutable proof we are faced with here. I use logic, therefore it is so. Logic is so, therefore it is true.

Q: But where did it come from?
A: God's creation reflects his nature. Man (atheists included) use the logic, science, and morality that God has given them, whether they acknowledge the source or not.

Fastlane,
Logic the word comes from LOGOS sometimes translated word (meaning a proposition). In the bible (KJV) you will need to look up wisdom and understanding. Also the word "therefore" is a good word to search. You can also look up reason and contradiction etc.
If I understand your question "is the definition of logic I use the same as the one you are using when you say "source of logic- Jesus Christ."?" I would say yes. The logic we both use finds it's source in Jesus Christ (Col.2:3).

When you had read the Wikipedia article you would know that there are listed the rules that apply to proofs. Which means that the rules themselves can not and are not to be proven. So, no circular reasoning. They are the just rules by which the logic in our brain works.

And why does our brain works by those rules? Because we can understand nature by those rules. If we had in our brain a different logic, we could not have survived in nature. So the reason for the logic rules in our brain is not the Bible, its just evolution.

And why does nature work in a way that we can understand and predict it by rules of logic? Its likewise simple, nature could have also worked in a different way and then we had a different logic, for survival in nature. Our brain will always work by the rules of logic that allows us to survive in our environment.

And all this totally without bible.

Hope this helps to understand logic a little, and to understand that logic and religion are quite two different things. Just as religion and morality are two different and as in case of the bible, even contradictory things.

Funny, using logic aurguments to prove something as abstract as faith....

No wonder Fastlane is kicking butt on this train wreck of a thread.

Not sure what Dan S. is trying to work through here but, I think that maybe this not the place for dealing with a crisis of faith....

I for one will stop reading Dans attacks at the Bible or God, no matter how well fought. I hope this may be helping Dan, but I am also offended by it.

Faith is personal and something between you and your God. Public attacks are tiresome and at times disturbing.....


Ken

I refer to my original post in this thread. It argues god's existence even without assuming he is corruptible.

And, in my humble opinion, the rules of mathematics, physics, and even logic, shouldn't have to be different for believers. To me this only sounds like one has to distort their understanding of reality to fit their thinking into teachings of the bible.

We aren't talking about wisdom nor understanding.
We are talking about logic and math.

neither logic nor math equal widom. Thus that is moot search.

However, logic can lead to understanding but from the first 100 references to "understanding" in the bible, none of them imply a logical or mathematical system. They merely state that god is the source of understanding which is a far cry from outlining a logical or mathematical system.

So if you arguement is one of substitution -- everywhere it says "wisdom" substitute "logic" -- because these are unrelated terms then you can substitute "anything" for "anything else" and that is neither logical nor rational.

So this fails to show that the bible outlines a logical and mathematical system.



What does this prove? Therefore is merely a word, it is not a logical system. For example, I can say "I am god therefore worship me". Is that a logical statement? No. It's merely a statement. If we agree on the wikipedia version, Logic needs to have a precondition, rules, and a conclusion. The bible goes straight to the conclusion while ignoring the precondition and rules.

Again, you fail to show proof that the bible lays out a system of math and logic as agreed upon us through wikipedia.



Yet he never mentions logic once. So how can we attribute something to someone (jesus) or something (bible) that makes no mention of that something?

Furthermore:

Col 2:3 --> "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

Here's a bit of logic for you:

If an object is hidden, it is not in view and cannot be used.
Jesus' treasures are hidden.
Therefore, jesus treasures are not in view and cannot be used.
Jesus' treasures are widom and knowledge.
Therefore, wisdom and knowledge are not in view and cannot be used.


Your own scriptures go against your earlier statement that logic and math as outlined in wikipedia come from the bible... jesus may have known it, but he sure didn't put it in the bible and share it with us!

So once again we come to the conclusion that the bible speaks of many things, but not of logic and math.

That is not very strong logic. If something is hidden it cannot be revealed?

First of all you didnt bother to figure out who it was hidden from. It never said that it was hidden from everyone.

Second there is nothing to prevent it from being revealed. If something is hidden it can be at any time revealed at the discretion of the hider.

Third you have failed to evaluate the material itself, nor to take time into consideration. Knowledge can be revealed bit by bit over time. Unlimited knowledge can be revealed thusly over an unlimited time period. Therefore an unlimited body of knowledge(such as that which is within Christ) can be both hidden and revealed at the same time, because parts of it can be hidden, and parts of revealed.

If I have wisdom and knowledge hidden within me, it becomes unhidden as soon as I choose to reveal it. God reveals His knowledge to His elect. It is hidden to everyone else.

Nardulus,
logic is abstract- look up the definition of abstract.

Using Websters.......

Logic:

(1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

Abstract:

a: disassociated from any specific instance <an abstract entity> b: difficult to understand : abstruse <abstract problems> c: insufficiently factual :

Faith:

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

Not seeing where logic and abstract have much in common.

Ken

I think you hit the point:
That's what Dan's rant is all about, that the christians that he experienced do not separate their and his personal faith from impersonal scientific truth, but that they claim for the bible as the expression of their faith scientific truth.

Spirit,
You state: "And why does our brain works by those rules? Because we can understand nature by those rules. If we had in our brain a different logic, we could not have survived in nature. So the reason for the logic rules in our brain is not the Bible, its just evolution."
It is a significant philosophical problem to have the laws of logic arising from evolution. The law of identity would prohibit any change for example. This would also mean that the laws of logic are contingent or only possible to occur. Also that they may evolve into something else. This is all ridiculous nonsense.
Plus good philosophers have destroyed the expectation of the future to be like the past (See Hume and Russell) on atheistic principles, so the laws of logic might change in the next 5 minutes. This puts no difference between lunacy and logic.

Nardulus,
In the context of our discussion- abstract is 'apart from concrete existence'(Amer.Her.). In other words in a materialist universe how do you have abstract (immaterial) entities?

fastlane69,
The bible doesn't use the word math or logic but it uses the words wisdom and understanding instead. For example Exodus 31:3-5.
Plus you are missing the point (intentionally?). I am telling you the presuppositions necessary for logic and science and math to exist. You keep attacking what nobody is suggesting. I am showing you how God thinks in the bible and how he expects us to think. You can find the law of contradiction used in the bible for example. What do you not understand? Are you trying to impose your standards of evidence onto the bible and if it doesn't use your words and phrases it can't be true? I thought you were trying to apply logic.

Bait and swtich. I see. Spend several posts talking about math and logic in teh bible and then at the end, say "oh, I meant wisdom and understanding instead". I may be an atheist, but at least I'm honest.



I'm not attacking the bible whatsoever. I find it a great read with a great message and a killer ending.

What I am attacking is your definition of logic and your idea that math and logic are presented in the same manner as in wikipedia in the bible. I ask you to define logic in the context of the bible, you offer me "wisdom". I ask you to show me proof of math in the bible, you offer me "understanding". I ask you to clearly STATE what the preconditions are and you give me nothing.



And I have repeatedly shown how this thinking has nothing to do with math and logic. I have conclusively shown that neither math nor logic are even mentioned in the bible... Mercy, forgiveness, morality, love, hate... on these topics the bible speaks and speaks eloquently. But on math and logic the bible is silent.

fastlane69,
If you are asking me to conduct a bible study here, let me recommend that you read some of Gordon Clarks or John Robbins work on logic and the bible. Also J.C.Keister has stuff on Math and the Bible you can read. But the reference I gave you in Exodus should have sufficed with a little inference on your part. Do you think God would have given the Jews the blueprints to build the tabernacle without math? This is my point you are not trying to apply logic to my statements. The only thing you have repeatedly shown is that you are not understanding or not reading my posts.
Let me recommend that you go back and read all of my posts and see if you can piece together answers for you 'objections'.

Neither clark nor robbins nor keister made the statement that....



... but you did. And when I showed that neither term was in the bible and thus not part of the christian worldview, you turn to wisdom and understanding.


You can't keep what you are saying straight... it's as simple as that.

Further evidence of this is that twice you've stated that I should have "infered" from your answers what you mean, which is a sign of an unclear presentation. Furthermore, now you ask me to go back piece together an answer, instead of simply giving me the answer. Even if the answer was already in a previous post, a simple reference to that post would have sufficed. But instead, you dont' make any specific references and simply state "the answer is up there; somewhere. I'm not going to tell you where; you have to piece it together". This again is evidence that you cannot keep you discussion points straight and rely on others to do it for you.


Understanding can only be acheived when people are honest with their words (math/logic vs. wisdom/understanding), are clear about their points(no "inference" needed), and when they give clear answers to clear questions (no "piece it together yourself"). As you lack all these qualities, we will never reach anything approximating understanding.

Thus I leave you with your worldview and your bible and this thread. I'll just satisfy myself with the knowledge that in death, all these questions will be answers.. but not here... not with you.

So enjoy the rest of the forum, ChrisTodd!
Ta!

fastlane69,
Apparently your failure to read and try to understand my posts has degenerated into slander. For example you said:
"Bait and swtich. I see. Spend several posts talking about math and logic in teh bible and then at the end, say "oh, I meant wisdom and understanding instead". I may be an atheist, but at least I'm honest."'
Hardly honest. I clarified your misunderstanding 3 times. Math and logic are contained in wisdom and understanding in the bible. This was a clue for you to research in the bible as you pretended you were interested in doing. You are not reading what I wrote or not understanding what you are reading or are interntionally playing ignorant of the argument I have put forth basically 40 times. Please spend a little time and read my posts more slowly. Also read Clark, Robbins, and Keister (also Greg Bahnsen) with a little more care than you have taken with my posts.
Plus you appear to be hugging a false dilemma that if there isn't a cut and paste wikipedia article in the bible then you have the obligation to suspend all deductive abilities you posess.
The things you continue asking are already posted, I suggest you read my posts.

You still haven't said anything that proves this. Saying someone is wise, doesn't mean they are the 'source of logic'. In fact, it's pretty insane if you look at the fact that Jesus died for others... regardless of social martyrdom where's the logic in all that? If he would use the laws of logic, he would have made sure to stick around a LOT longer, helping all in need of help.

The Bible definitely is no authority on logic and it is indeed funny that you've decided to switch words to 'understanding and wisdom'. From a biological and psychological point of view, the last few sentences I've quoted from you are totally wrong. Laws of logic are universal, there's no need to even have read the Bible to understand logic. There's no dilemma except your odd reasoning here of how knowledge of the Bible would give 'advanced' access to logic or something. Quite ridiculous.



Wikipedia doesn't contain much truth, instead it contains what the majority of people believe to be true. Quite similar to your Bible actually, so I do not see the problem. Especially because Wikipedia is a tad more reliable than the Bible, being written a lot more recent, having access to a lot of sources and so on,

Again sorry for being blunt, but I guess you are ignorant of how the Bible came to be. Look at a Wikipedia kind of book, but instead it's edibility was frozen at some point in time or only possible by religious leaders of great authority/influence,

Cheers

Phoemox,
I think you misunderstand Christianity; "Saying someone is wise, doesn't mean they are the 'source of logic'." Christianity teaches the Jesus Christ is the source of wisdom and understanding (which includes logic and math- please study these words in the bible if you don't understand this concept). But he is the source because he is God not because he was a wise man. Christianity teaches Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.
Wisdom (which includes math and logic) is in the nature of God which is why we understand it to be infinite, invarient, universal and not physical. So when you say something like this:
"Laws of logic are universal, there's no need to even have read the Bible to understand logic."
You miss the point. You as a non-Christian cannot rationally account for the laws of logic existing in a contingent physical universe of chance. Nor can you account for how it is that you can use universal immaterial logical laws, when your brain is not universal and is material. This is what you continually ignore.

As a Christian I beg to differ. Christianity teaches nothing of that sort. Jesus Christ being the source of logic and math may be your own private opinion but has nothing to do with Christianity.

Christianity teaches that Jesus died for us. Wisdom, logic, and math are general human achievements. In fact math was developed by the Babylonians long before Jesus was born and before the Bible was written.

Apologetics are fine but posting nonsense in the name of Christianity is not helpful.

Of course I ignore this as it makes no sense whatsoever to me. Tell me how you 'rationally account for' any of those laws. Is it "just because you're a Christian"?

I think I understand the concepts of those laws a lot better than you if you assume, like I said before, that Christianity has some kind of authority in those areas. It certainly has not. As said by Tobias math wasn't invented by Christ nor God, but by mankind. A lot of it was figured out by looking at the stars, understanding patterns, movements and so on all through logic. I don't see what Christianity has got to do with that.

In my framework of things, logic (all kinds of it, as there are many), math and all those other universal laws make perfect sense. Sure, there might be intangible things because of my lack of knowledge and I would even go further and admit that to some extent I'm probably not smart enough to fully understand every concept. However, I really do not see where you're arrogance comes from in saying 'you do not really understand, but Christians do'. Complexity is no indication for something supernatural, instead it's an indication for a lack of knowledge. We can always learn more and something chaos is in perfect order.

I do not want to throw mud, as I like good discussions, but your point is sort of none-existent as it's just an empty claim, sorry.



I think you're misunderstanding... as 1.) Jesus is called 'son of God' many many times throughout the Bible and 2.) Jesus felt betrayed by his 'father' or at least by God.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your words in taking things too literal, but explain how he then is supposed to be the same God. I think describing him as 'angel' would be more appropriate if anything.

Cheers

I think I finally understand where Chris is coming from. Please correct if I am getting it wrong.

Chris feels that God is the creator of everything. The heavens, the planets, the mass and atoms that make up all matter.

Using science and logic man observes these objects and forms laws of physics, and logic, and how everything works. Since God put all this in place we are only observing what God created thus all logic, science and knowlegde are directly related to God.

I think that is the point Chris is trying to make.

So far man has been unable to prove the existance of God, thus we need to have faith, make the leap over the facts and believe or not.

So in my feeable old mind it still comes down to faith. Not logic, not science, just faith.

I need to keep things simple or I get cranky....

Ken

Yep, you definitely seem to be spot on there Nardulus.

But there are many problems with the 'God did it all' explanation, which in itself really isn't an explanation at all if you can't prove it.

I'll admit that I do not and can not know God's motives for whatever he did or did not, if for a moment I would assume he exists or existed in the first place of course.

But in the bigger picture it definitely doesn't make much sense that there's some kind of magical, omnipotent, supernatural something controlling all things behind the curtains.

Cheers

This is partially correct. God though did not create logic and math, rather it reflects his nature - infinite, unchanging, eternal, immaterial. God designed nature intelligently (or with wisdom for you who do not study the bible), and created us in his image with rational minds (wisdom in the inward parts-Job 38:36 for those of you who haven't read the bible) which depend upon him for every thought we think. God says "let us reason together" Isa.1:18 Or as Nardulus said "all logic, science and knowlegde are directly related to God"
The Babylonians did not create math- man simply discovers math. PHeMoX said "A lot of it was figured out by looking at the stars, understanding patterns, movements and so on all through logic.". Of course they discovered much from the creation of the world, the heavens declare the glory of God (Psa.19:1, Rom.1:20) God asked Job a rhetorical question in ch.38:33 regarding the stars "Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" Some people would have us believe that logic and math was created by men and they set the ordinances of heaven. ("He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh")
Jesus Christ most definitely is God in the flesh (Jn.1:1, 1 Tim.3:16) and if you don't believe this you will die in your sins according to Jesus Christ (John 8:23-4).
Man does not prove the existence of God it is clearly evident to everyone so much so they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20 All of their thoughts depend upon God since they require logic and science (uniformity in nature). Mans problem is sin, and this is why they do not like to retain God in their knowledge (Rom.1:28). Yet there is no philosophy that men can invent that is not dependent upon uniformity in nature and logic. Nor is there any philosophy that can account for (make sense of) logic and uniformity in nature, no not one. So as God would say to you infidels "bring forth your strong reasons" (Isa.41:21). Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. (1 Cor.1:18-31)
Let me exhort all unbelievers to repent of this foolishness and Christ shall give thee light. There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD (Prov.21:30). Quit trying to ignore God's revelation of himself to you at every thought, God knows the things that come into your minds, every one of them. And he will judge the secrets of the world by Jesus Christ according to the gospel.
Christ died for your sins and was buried and rose again the third day and only faith in what he has done will save you (1 Cor.15:1-3).

Isa 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David...

This prophecy about Jesus calls him "The mighty God, The everlasting Father".

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

God was manifest in the flesh. It's not taking the Bible too literal to read that just like it stands. Of course, this is a mystery and must be tempered and understood by the Spirit of God. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor. 2:14)

1Jn 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

Who laid down his life for us? This verse says God did.

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

God's blood here (Jesus shed his own blood for the sins of the world).

These things are not contradictions, but revelation that Jesus is God. And before someone "jumps my case" about using circular reasoning or "using the Bible doesn't prove anything" let me remind you that Tobias and Phemox have been referencing the Bible in several posts (albeit indirectly), I'm just giving you the chapter and verse for what I'm quoting. Phemox apparently doesn't mind referencing the Bible when it supports what he believes. Interesting how that works.

Yeah, so perhaps he had children? In no way does it change the fact that in the same line he is referred to as 'Prince of peace'. Why not King of Peace? Doesn't Prince imply that he had a father? So he still can't be the same entity as God.



It's neither, although at best they are contradictions.

I'm sure we can discuss all the different interpretations all infinity long and still not agree, but that would be rather pointless.
It's your opinion that the solution for it not to be a contradiction is that it must be someone else. Like God.

Doesn't the Bible state to worship only 1 God by the way? So ... how does Jesus, as your God, fit in this picture?



Whatever..., what's the point of taking part in this discussion when you do not intend to come with actual arguments or even worse claim to have some kind of right to not have to prove anything you say.

Those quotes from the Bible do not prove anything, most of it doesn't really make sense anyways as it gets ripped out of it's context and used in whatever way you see fit. The way I see it, the burden of proof is on you,

Cheers

In that he is God. I only worship one God. (1 John 5:7, Col. 2:8-9, and Gen. 1:26-7 w/ Eph 3:9 among others)

You seem to be ignoring my point, as it's simply yet another contradiction. You did prove my previous point though,

Cheers

Shultz,
You see how arbitrary infidels are? They want the law of contradiction to be absolute and universal and invarient. In other words they don't want it to be dependent upon the physical world and subject to 'evolution'. But when it comes to looking into their 'religion' to see what the law of contradiction is they "fall to pieces" (to quote whoever that country singer was).
I wonder in Phemox metaphysics why the law of contradiction is absolute and universal and invarient and immaterial? And then since his brain is the opposite of those things how can it accurately apply this law? Maybe he can quote a verse out of his bible to us (all infidels have their own bible- they are usually writing it as they go)

Infidel? I'm pretty sure that counts as an ad hominum attack the way you use it.

There's nothing arbitrary about sane logic when it comes to contradictions.

There are by the way no contradictions in 'evolution' itself, only in your distorted view of what evolution is perhaps. Are there unanswered questions when it comes to the various theories? Sure, but then again we do not pretend to know everything or even have a solution for every problem out there. Contrary to your 'God did it all' solution, we're not that foolish.



I guess you simply won't ever understand.

Cheers

Phoemox,
"Infidel" is a phrase found in the bible describing you (2 Cor.6:15) not an ad hominem attack. Plus many infidels are proud to be called infidel (check out the web).
Maybe you can provide us the name of your self made religion and i'll call you by that name if you prefer.
You said:
"There's nothing arbitrary about sane logic when it comes to contradictions.
There are by the way no contradictions in 'evolution' itself" So you should have no trouble explaining how the law of contradiction evolved and what it is? Or if it is man made then someone can stipulate their own law of logic which allows for contradictions. Who are we to judge their 'religion'?
If you are interested in seeing how foolish atheism is you should listen to Greg Bahnsen debate Gordon Stein. Very entertaining.

How about ; 'no religion'. What's the point of having a name, when my belief is NOT religious. There's no point. I think infidel is quite offending, as it claims that I'm 'ignorant' which I am not. I probably know a lot more about the Bible than most atheists/agnostics do, even though all it really takes to fall from any religion is gathering scientific knowledge to be honest.



If something that looks like a fly has always existed next to mankind, but we haven't yet gave it the name 'fly', then does this mean the fly did not ever exist?

Of course not. Same goes for logic, contradiction and so on. At some point in time we evolved from apes to humans, gaining an intelligence big enough to become more self-aware than most animals. Ultimately leading to very complex social behavior, philosophical thoughts and incredible engineering.

Theories and ideas about logic, contradictions and so on are mainly just philosophical and social discoveries. That's why these laws are universal. They have always been there.. just like the fly, it just took some time before we identified it as a 'fly'.

As with most things, ideas will change over time depending mainly on the average knowledge-level. It only makes sense to assume that with the mere increase of our brain capabilities, so must have our perception of contradictions and logic.

The 'understanding' you talk about from your Bible is purposefully vague and multi-interpretable, hardly something you could use when it comes to logic in practice. Because if I understand correctly, you say there is no contradiction because you follow a different kind of logic/interpretation where these rules don't apply. Well, it can't get any worse than this as far as ignorance goes.

Cheers

This should make you feel better Phemox:

in·fi·del (nf-dl, -dl)n.
1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.
3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

Sounds like it describes you just fine. What definition were you using anyhow? I admit the word infidel does carry a certain stigma with it, but it does not mean ignorant, just unbelieving as in the verse ChrisTodd posted. Here it is (with verse 14 for context) for reference, since it does not appear that you looked it up.

2Co 6:14-15 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

The word infidel does not mean ignorant as you claim. In the context of these verses, at worst it implies that an infidel is unrighteous, unbelieving, Belial, and in darkness. It just so happens that infidel's are ignorant because they ignore their creator, which can be clearly seen in nature, so that they are without excuse.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:



Who is arguing about theories and ideas about logic? You need to join the discussion at hand. It is not about the theories and ideas about logic, it is about logic itself.

Yeah, but I was talking about the stigma, not it's definition. There are all kinds of words that carry more meaning than just their definition. Take for example 'religion' itself.



You've missed my point, as it is basically the same thing.

There are things in our reality that become laws or rules because we agreed upon how things work within a system. Red is red because we agreed upon it.. it could have been named blue.

In math, as it's perhaps the easiest thing to explain a certain kind of logic with, 2 and 2 added together makes 4 basically because we agreed upon it.

It also makes sense from the perspective of logic though because it fits perfectly within one of the commonly used frames of logic where two times the same amount makes double the initial amount.
The core frame of thought we usually refer to when it comes to our everyday math and everyday logical problems.

Don't forget logic is mainly about argumentative thoughts and principles. In other words, 2 times 2 is double the initial amount because we can measure an increase that is exactly double. It sounds more self verifying that it really is, as in the end it is a simple choice of framework.

The only reason why choosing a different frame work for (at least our everyday) math would become 'illogical', is because of the physical nature of measurements and methods that all depend on how math fits within our bigger framework of thoughts. It seems self verifying because we are used to using this kind of logic and this framework in our everyday lives. But in reality it's a quite relative matter actually.

That's why the whole field of logic ranges from the study of validity, fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analysis of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality. Whether or not something 'makes sense' within the context of logic in the broadest possible way, is definitely not up to the Bible to decide anyways, so I do not understand why you think the Bible could even 'account for' logic when it clearly can not,



Knowing what I know I beg to differ and if there's one thing that is not at all obvious then it's "God" being visible through nature or in all things around us. Again, even the most overwhelming complexity of things is still no indication for a divine origin,

Cheers

@testdummy:
This is the third time I am replying to a deleted post :P



I believe understanding can only be achieved when both parties ask eachother what they don't understand about the opposite party's point of view.
The christian party here keeps holding to it's own points, flawed or not, and does not show any interest in the atheïst partie's point of view. Therefore, the atheïst is not able to gain his answer, a link between Atheïst logic and Christian bible, either.

The Christian party points the misunderstanding of the Atheïst party, but forget to think about his own misunderstandings pointed out by the Atheïst party. How can then this discussion be taken seriously by the Atheïst party? It can not.


Obviously the logic that the Christian party handles, is not the same as the Atheïst's, for the Christian party's logic is based upon God's word, or the bible scription, and the atheïst's logic is based on live experiments.

Atheïst logic would imply that it's not logic to build logic on an uncertain source. Christian logic however takes the bible as a stable source, and thus can build logic from there. An interesting question would be how the Christian party knows that this bible is a stable source. But somehow I know I wont get a satisfying answer on that one.

PHeMoX,
Thats quite a list of errors for us to engage all at once.
"There are things in our reality that become laws or rules because we agreed upon how things work within a system. Red is red because we agreed upon it.. it could have been named blue."
This is obviously a false ananlogy; comparing a necessary abstract law with an arbitrary unnecessary name given to a particular physical entity.
Here is your second error:
"In math, as it's perhaps the easiest thing to explain a certain kind of logic with, 2 and 2 added together makes 4 basically because we agreed upon it."
So we could all agree then that 2 plus 2 would equal 5 and it would? Come on now.
Here is a small sample of your "law giving":
"logic is mainly about argumentative thoughts and principles" Maybe you can elaborate on this 'metaphysical principle'. Do our thoughts create logic or does logic create our thoughts? Then there is this jewel "It sounds more self verifying that it really is, as in the end it is a simple choice of framework." So it sounds self verifying but it really is a simple choice? Are all arbitrary 'simple choices' self verifying? I think you are trying to say that different fields of 'science' carry with them self verifying "logics" to evaluate inter-field hypothesis. So that you would not proceed to prove barometric pressure the exact same way you would prove blood pressure. This of course doesn't answer intra-field varience evaluation (the laws of meteorology will not be found to contradict the laws of biology where they might cross and so forth). You see the application of logic is universal and invarient and absolute. Plus your inference here is that the laws of logic arise from physical laws. The laws of logic in this view are based on the inherent property of a thing. A thing is what it is and has the properties it has and we generalize our observations into 'laws'. Of course the problem of induction would here destroy logic of any sort (making lunacy equal to logic as I already stated). Plus the law of identity 'whatever is- is' would be associated with the conclusion that there can be no change (whatever is- would change). So this would contradict evolution. But who cares since the law of contradiction is only probable to occur.
This helps to understand why you conclude things like "so I do not understand why you think the Bible could even 'account for' logic when it clearly can not". It is not suprising that you cannot see the solution found in the bible, you fail to apprehend the problem. Your tiny little bit of philosophy you explain here and live by (your bible) is so full of contradiction and arbitrary assumption you need to repent for slandering the bible.
You ended with this statement:
"Again, even the most overwhelming complexity of things is still no indication for a divine origin," -Your post makes this clear!

No, it's not a false analogy. It makes sense from the perspective of logic to give colors names. Simple identification, that's all there is to it. It's all far less absolute than you wish to believe. It's abstract and quite subjective at times, as long as it still makes sense within a certain frame of logic.



No, because of the physical metric nature of the application of math, 2 plus 2 equals 5 would simply not work and cause problems, of course assuming that we count 1,2,3,4,5 and not 1,2,3,5,4, or something. Which believe it or not is as arbitrary as choosing a name for a color.

There has been a time where people discovered all this, thought about it and so on. Way before your Bible ever existed.
I gave the color example on purpose to show a difference.



Yes, of course. We can choose whatever number we decide upon is 2 times 2, in the end it's self verifying but only after we decided to make a choice. There's no contradiction in this.



No, I just gave an example. Apart from that it's just one of the kinds of logic there are,



Another empty claim. Deduction is only one of the methods to study logic. In this case mathematical logic. There are many more.



Ah, the good old 'you don't understand, because you just don't understand' argument. I'd say, try again man.



Sure.. logic is simply (one of) the core piece(s) of general interpretation. I assume you are aware of the fact that metaphysics is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world. I'm not talking about the non-philosophy related 'metaphysics' that gets used as buzzword for religious purposes of how 'there's more to life'. Covering topics as 'spirit', 'soul' and so on.



You have to understand that the choice of which logic to use is entirely arbitrary. However when it comes to theory vs. practice, you will see that a lot of different approaches simply won't work. That's where logic it's application is discovered.

Don't forget there are many different forms of logic nowadays, but the discovery of classical logic must have had countless implications. It's very useful to divide the propositions in this world into true or false propositions. That form of logic is crucial to understand the world around us.

But really, there are many different kinds of logic, like intuitionistic logic. They do not all cover truths in an absolute sense at all, more often a certain kind of justification is far more important. Having said that, many forms of logic itself are quite the opposite of absolute,

Cheers

Quoting Joozey. (Quick, delete 'your' post.
...and there a taste of the sensation, for slice of self, and reply to missing post.)

'I' could agree with that.
(What are 'your' views on submission of expressions by one slice, and removal a bit later by another? (1.post 2. is garbage 3. dispose )
Never mind, that is off-topic.
'I' hope it isn't too bothersome.)

Perhaps, neither active party seeks understanding from the other.
Maybe both are deeply rooted in 'their' trenches, while playing a fine game of "Discussion & Verbal-Assault TM".


Maybe, it is just choice. One party may choose to believe a book is this, and another may choose to believe it is that.
Probably the choice is not made in a vacuum.
Genetic makeup, environment, upbringing, experience, company, other choices, etc. differ.
Here, the book in question may be very well-circulated and often hotly debated.

It almost seems some amount of 'training' or 'practice' is necessary to defend certain choices well.

Phemox,

"No, it's not a false analogy."- I described exactly what you said and demonstrated that it is. You are comparing a necessary abstract law with an arbitrary unnecessary name given to a particular physical entity. You may try to save it with special pleading fallacies such as arguing that logic is simply naming something (law of identity-? or do you reject this as a law of logic), but then using it as though it is something more than that (law of contradiction).

You continued "It makes sense from the perspective of logic to give colors names. Simple identification, that's all there is to it. It's all far less absolute than you wish to believe. It's abstract and quite subjective at times, as long as it still makes sense within a certain frame of logic." Here you use logic to mean simple identification but then it means something higher like 'making sense' in the next sentence.

As far as metaphysics everyone has metaphysical commitments, yours are associated with the uniformity of nature. How do you answer Hume's problem of induction? In other words the argument that there is no rational guarantee that the future will resemble the past.

You keep associating logic as simple identification and enumeration such as we could arrange 12345 to be 12354. But you say we cannot change the reality that 2+2 would ever actually equal 5. But you are failing to see the difference between the concrete world of sensation and the abstract world of math(most perfect geometric shapes for example). Many laws of math and logic are never experienced in the physical world but yet they are subject to the law of contradiction.
You are still assuming the error that logic is from the material world and have not answered my objection regarding the law of identity (which you can't reject and try to have math absolutely non-contradictory. For if the fly you counted with the number 1 is in a constant state of change [molecules in motion] then it's existance is like a river where you never see the same water twice. Here you have the metaphysical commitment that a thing maintains its identity although time and location change along with its body. Like you as a baby being the same you as an adult and not a bunch of different people in between.)
Nor have you addressed the problem of induction as it would apply to logic in your metaphysical world. Plus the law of contradiction would only be probable, another devastating error you avoid addressing. I would also be interested to know in your probability if there are infinite possiblities? If not what metaphysical commitment would prohibit this?
This whole thing is a wreck. You said also "Having said that, many forms of logic itself are quite the opposite of absolute" So this is absolutely true? Or absolutely false?

You've only demonstrated how language fails when it comes to discussions like these. But lets just say it's relatively true, as that is correct in this case. We can't weight in what we do not know yet, but it would be stupid to ignore the possibility.

I think I'll leave this discussion be, as there's no point in arguing with you. You wouldn't fall for the good old 'If God is able to do literally anything, then.. can he make a stone too heavy for himself to lift??' kind of reasoning either.



You should really look into the subject logic and philosophy some more. There are literally all kinds of logic, formal logic, classical logic, mathematical logic, intuitionistic logic and much much more. It makes little sense to confuse them all, as you just did.
I am also having a difficult time explaining things in English as it's not my mother tongue.



There's nothing "probably" about the principle of contradiction, look up 'propositional logic'. It just has to follow a system of formal proof rules.

Cheers

Phemox,
You advise:
"You should really look into the subject logic and philosophy some more. There are literally all kinds of logic, formal logic, classical logic, mathematical logic, intuitionistic logic and much much more. It makes little sense to confuse them all, as you just did."
I mostly read Bertrand Russell because Einstein recommends him. But I read Kant and Hume also; who do you recommend?
Let me recommend you read some Christian philosophers such Greg Bahnsen, Corneilus Van Til or Gordon Clark.
I do not confuse various logics as you suggest here:
"You should really look into the subject logic and philosophy some more. There are literally all kinds of logic, formal logic, classical logic, mathematical logic, intuitionistic logic and much much more. It makes little sense to confuse them all, as you just did."
I understand this but they all must adhere to intra-field principles of logic and not contradictory systems of logic as you would have to agree. What do you do by the way when logicians and philosophers disagree fundamentally on logic?

I see where you are coming from, but the funny thing is that there literally is no intra-field all-compassing form of logic.
There simply are separate forms of logic, each with it's own application (as you would understand, some are more useful than others, hence why I gave the mathematical logic example).

You call these different kinds contradictory systems I guess, but they are not comparable. Often they do not really exclude the other forms of logic, because they are more like apples and oranges.



Well, here you are generalizing a bit too much again. When logicians and philosophers disagree fundamentally on logic, it's still likely, or probably even inevitable, that one of them simply refers to a non-classical kind of logic and the other to a different kind.



There are a bunch of books you could look into. I take it you've already read Betrand Russel's Principia Mathematica, but I'd also recommend "Logic and Ontology", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. There's more, but I'd have to dig in my bookshelf for a bit to find them I think,

Cheers

When its about book recommendations, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Popper is the very fundamental book about how logic helps us to build scientific theories. Russel and Whitehead are fine too, but I'd recommend Popper first when you want seriously discuss logic. Popper also deals with some popular misconceptions that are often present in discussions like this, such as misunderstanding of deduction and induction, or what a scientific proof means, or confusing the logic law of identity with unchangeability.

I take it you've already read Betrand Russel's Principia Mathematica

Did you really read it ?
I guess that 3 or 4 people on the surface of the earth may have had the guts to read this book
By the way I have been educated or spoilt, depending from the point of view, by the Bertrand Russels's books but please leave this book alone

As the great mathematician said
" If you need 1000 pages to define what a number is, how many pages do you need to demostrate a real theorem ?"

My comment there was a bit sarcastic, but I did read it. I have one copy of the 9th impression on my bookshelf, the one that comes in 3 volumes.

I'm a bit crazy when it comes to philosophy, mathematics and the whole logic thing. And although irrelevant for the most part, I've also got a lot of books on psychology.



Usually books, but yes you're probably right, usually only people that actively study these things read this. But I have to admit that it's merely a hobby of mine, I do not pretend to understand everything in those books, eventhough I do think I've learned quite a lot through reading them,

Cheers

PHeMoX,
Check out Greg Bahnsen on epistemology:

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Apologetics/Greg-Bahnsen/

One article entitled "Science, Subjectivity, and Scripture" http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa044.htm
hits upon some of the topics we are discussing. He gives a good brief outline of modern philosophers of science and logicians and their conflicting approaches to unify the sciences. This is from a Christian apologetical standpoint. He also has an article exposing and seizing upon the weaknesses of Russell.
The article "Revisionary Immunity" also is an interesting discussion on the failure to make analytic and synthetic distinctions in reasoning.

Alright, I'll look into it. Thanks.



I will try not to be biased about this, but this doesn't quite sound right already.

Cheers

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

There are many ways to express an idea, a promise or a truth. Especially
when you take into account our ever changing language.
Thats one reason why there are so many translations, language changes
so the Bible must be retranslated regularly to keep up with the language in
common use. I, for one, have no problem with that.

I have read a quite a few translations and I am prepared to conclude
that if its not a "paraphrased translation" then you can rely on all of them.
Paraphrased versions need to carefully considered because
they are a written interpretation of what the writer thinks it means.
Literal translations are written to express the orriginal in the language of today.

3 rules for reading the bible
1) Keep in mind the context.
2) Let the bible interpret itself, steer clear of your own interpretations.
3) Prayer for understanding/guidance.

As CrisTodd says there are a multitude of types, shadows, similtudes, figures etc. So many in fact, that they are far too intricately interwoven to be the work of a single human writer let alone the number of actual writers involved.