Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
knowledge and mutual exclusion
Topic Started: Apr 10 2007, 12:37 AM (1,210 Views)
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
It's a super excellent question Horace and I want to do justice to it. It's midnight now so I'm going to hit the hay. Tomorrow...well...I won't be around. Caroline knows where I will be, but she is sworn to GIRL SECRECY :lol:


I will return to this. Thanks for your patience!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Horace
Apr 10 2007, 08:51 PM
Not you, Deb, but in the debates here people speak of their belief in terms that leave no room for doubt. But I'm glad to hear that many of you do have some human doubt - I find that concept of belief to be accessible, while doubtless knowledge of something like that is like something from another species, to me.

I have absolute certainty in my faith, but that does not prohibit me from saying that sure, I could be wrong.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Horace
Apr 10 2007, 11:30 AM
Dewey
Apr 10 2007, 03:17 AM
I don't think you're going to find anyone who meets your criterion of having "100% indisputable knowledge of your God."

But there are a lot of people here who are very clear that they have no doubt whatsoever.

I'm not 100% certain. I have doubt.

What I have suggested in previous threads, however, is that if I believe something to be true then I believe it to be true -- whether the object of my belief is the existence of a God or the color of a coconut. When I say that I believe in God, I don't mean to suggest that God is some relativistic concept that can "exist" for one person but not for another... nor do I mean to suggest, when I say that I believe a particular coconut is beige, that the coconut is beige for me (because I think it's beige) but pink for another person (because he's nutty). I mean to suggest that I actually believe in a real, existing god, just as I actually believe that the coconut is beige. But I could be wrong -- on both accounts -- I often am.
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
DivaDeb
Apr 10 2007, 09:08 PM
It's a super excellent question Horace and I want to do justice to it. It's midnight now so I'm going to hit the hay. Tomorrow...well...I won't be around. Caroline knows where I will be, but she is sworn to GIRL SECRECY :lol:


I will return to this. Thanks for your patience!

Thanks Deb, I hope you have a good time tomorrow!
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fish
Advanced Member
Quote:
 
But if I can look around me and realize that deep belief in mutually exclusive mythologies is not exclusive to any one religion, how can I reconcile that?  How do believers reconcile that?


I'm glad you brought this up, Horace, as I have often wondered the same.

It brings this to mind:

The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term paper. The answer from one student was so profound that the professor shared it with his colleagues, via the Internet, which is why we have the pleasure of enjoying too.

Bonus question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyles Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant . One student, however, wrote the following:

First we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate of which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of the religions state that if you are not a member of their religion you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates they are, we can project the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now we look at the rate of change in the volume in Hell as Boyles Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionally as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase in souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
Which is it?

If we except the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you" and take into account that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true. Thus Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.

The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore extinct..... leaving only Heaven therefore proving the existence of a divine being.

Which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting, "Oh, my God"

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY 'A' GRADE.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
pianojerome
Apr 11 2007, 01:54 AM
pianojerome
Apr 10 2007, 01:38 PM
Moonbat
Apr 10 2007, 01:36 PM
My entire philosophy, everything about the way i think about everything is built around the idea we can never have absolute certainity.

Are you certain about that?

Maybe my question came across as sarcastic. I apologize if it did.

It's actually a serious question. Are you absolutely certain that there are no absolute certainties?

Sorry i missed this the first time round. The answer is yes i am certain. The apparent paradox is an artifact of language.

I could rephrase by saying that we can never have absolute certainty regarding valid descriptions that are not self-referential. So a description of reality that does not involve ourselves in such away that one can derive it can never be certain.

However we can be certain of truisms like cogito ergo sum. And we can be certain that we cannot have certainty regarding other descriptions.

This is akin to one of the mathematical paradoxes which goes:

"Is the set of all sets, itself a set?" The paradox is that it must be set but if it is set it would have to contain itself which is impossible. The problem however is i think trivial as it's simply because we are able to contruct weird sentences. One can neatly avoid the paradox by rephrasing the question as "is the set of all other sets, itself a set?" to which the answer is "yes".

N.B.

There is something more to be said but it might be a bit hard to grasp:

The above claim implicitly assumes that there are multiple descriptions that are logically valid in and of themselves. For example the description "the Earth is flat" seems to be logically valid. That is it doesn't seem to be inherently contradictory (though it does seem to be false, and we can be exceedingly confident it is false, though we cannot prove it).

However perhaps we will discover that infact all descriptions bar one ultimately involve contradiction. That is perhaps if/when we find an ultimate theory we might discover that any attempt to alter it results in contradiction. That there are no logically possible alternatives. This would mean that descriptions like "the Earth is flat" would have to be not simply wrongm but meaningless. Intuitively that seems not to be the case and i do not find the above scenario likely however in that circumstance we would have certainty. The origin of the uncertainty comes from an inability to analytically prove one description is true over alternative logically possible descriptions. If there are no alternative logically possible descriptions then there is no issue.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Horace
Apr 10 2007, 11:51 PM
DivaDeb
Apr 10 2007, 03:28 PM
Have I ever said anything that made you think I would make that claim about God, Horace?

Not you, Deb, but in the debates here people speak of their belief in terms that leave no room for doubt. But I'm glad to hear that many of you do have some human doubt - I find that concept of belief to be accessible, while doubtless knowledge of something like that is like something from another species, to me.

Your response to TomK does serve though to get at my point. Having so little doubt about something which is mutually exclusive with, say, Judaism or Islam, how does that reconcile with the thought that practitioners of other faiths would be equally confident that Jesus wasn't the son of God? I know I'm not saying anything original here, but that's my biggest stumbling block to "faith". If the whole world was united in a sort of organic way to one religion and mythology then who am I to say that there's not something to it? It would be easy to believe then that there is a certain God, connected with a certain mythology, who does call out to everybody the world over. But if I can look around me and realize that deep belief in mutually exclusive mythologies is not exclusive to any one religion, how can I reconcile that? How do believers reconcile that?

For what it's worth, here's my take on your original question, Horace, and particularly, this follow-up comment.

Here, in as brief a manner as I can boil it down, is what I do believe:

a. that God is all-loving, all-knowing, all-just, and all merciful. And that not only is the cause and creator of history, but that God works directly, indirectly, and personally within history in ways that, even given various historical twists and turns dictated by human actions (both in accordance with and contrary to, God's wishes), ultimately, God is directing all of creation (not merely human existence) to a final completion and reconciliation to its intended perfection.

b. that Jesus Christ is the Incarnation of this God, that Jesus Christ is fully God and human, and that in Christ's life, death, and physical ressurection humanity is both shown the ultimate, most perfect illustration of God's truth and God's will for our living; as well as being the vehicle by which humanity, who now lives in a broken relationship with God, may be reconciled and returned to proper relationship with God.

That's what I believe, 100%. Anything else, and any specific details of those things, are at best interpretations or opinions. My first comment in this thread referenced that, as Deb has pointed out, that no one can have "100% knowledge of God", and therefore, can't have 100% knowledge of all the answers - even if they may have 100% belief in certain baseline points.

Here are some other things that I believe, with less than 100% understanding of the details.

While some Christians (and those of other faiths) feel otherwise, I do not believe that Christianity is "mutually exclusive" with Judaism, Islam, paganism, etc. As I said in another thread recently, I believe that there is quite a bit of overlap of truth in all of these religious expressions, and that regardless of where it shows up - including even when it shows up in atheists - that the source of this ultimate truth is one and the same God, the "Logos", the Word/Reason of God. It is my belief that God is the source of all truth, wherever and to whatever degree it shows up. To this extent, I do not believe that Christianity is the only repository for truth, while I do believe that in Christ is found the ultimate, most full expression of that truth which can be seen imperfectly and incompletely in all other religious belief systems - and which, frankly, is also imperfectly seen and understood by practicing Christians. Without getting into a history lesson or Biblical exposition, I'll just say that I didn't invent this belief, that it's been around since the beginning of the Christian faith, accepted as orthodox belief, and that it is supported by Scripture.

I don't believe that only Christians ultimately end up in heaven/the eternal presence of God. I believe that humans' ability to become reconciled with God is entirely initiated by God, not us, and that this completely unearned gift from God to comes to us through our faith in God and our desire to live in accordance with God's will (even if we know this will imperfectly). Just as millions of people lived before Christ walked the earth, and some of them ultimately entered heaven/the eternal presence of God, I believe that there are many, many others who have lived since Christ, who have never heard of Christ, or who for whatever reason are unable to hear the full message of God's good news expressed in Christ, that nonetheless receive/will receive eternal salvation. I believe that this has Scriptural backup, and that if nothing else, it is entirely consistent with what I know 100% to be true from other Scriptural sources - that God is all-merciful; and that whatever manner God ultimately deals with the eternal salvation of any person, that way will be a way that is all-just and all-merciful. And I believe that the ultimate "vehicle" for any such salvation is in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ - whether the person lived before or after Christ, or ever even heard the name of Jesus Christ.

That doesn't mean that I believe Jesus equals Buddha equals Vishnu equals... well, you name it. I don't believe that. I do hold that Jesus is the ultimate incarnation of the Truth that is seen imperfectly in other ways, in other belief systems. I don't believe that heaven will not contain Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or pagans. I believe that God will offer them salvation as well, using whatever all-just and all-merciful criteria God uses for Christians, and that whatever way that is, it is still only possible through the reconciliatory action of Jesus Christ. As Jesus said, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me." I believe that, 100%. I just don't know, 100%, the full implication or mechanics of how that truth is actually implemented.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
In my experience, people who cannot admit that they could be (or are) wrong, are generally wrong more often than those who express doubt.

Absolute certainty really is a mental abbheration. It is an unwillingness to accept evidence that is contrary to ones own beliefs. Throughout history, there have been monsters in many areas of endeavour who were so convinced that they had The Truth that they would destroy others who expressed dissent or doubt. In my opinion, doubt is essential to being an effective human being.

[Edit - sorry, this should probably have gone into the other thread. For some reason, I just can't bring myself to open that one again.]
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Horace
 
But if I can look around me and realize that deep belief in mutually exclusive mythologies is not exclusive to any one religion, how can I reconcile that? How do believers reconcile that?

But burning witches, silencing scientists, conducting Inquisitions, and converting and/or eliminating non-believers in general. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
(Deva Deb) I think there's about the same chance of that as the chance that you're a 4 foot- 2 inch tall, 84 year old woman who can palm a regulation men's basketball and dunk from half court.  But yeah...that much.  My confidence level is pretty high.


I don't know where you're comming from here at all Deb, unless you're quoting William James in that all religious conversions are instantanious events. For me it never was the case. Christianity for me was and is an all encumpassing sure thing. I see it very much in terms of Dewey's "creed" above. And while I have no certainty, faith--fills in the blanks. No Sturm und Drang, just faith. FWIW, In life I don't stress over very many things, so maybe that's just me. :wacko:


Quote:
 
(Horace) Your response to TomK does serve though to get at my point.  Having so little doubt about something which is mutually exclusive with, say, Judaism or Islam, how does that reconcile with the thought that practitioners of other faiths would be equally confident that Jesus wasn't the son of God?  I know I'm not saying anything original here, but that's my biggest stumbling block to "faith".  If the whole world was united in a sort of organic way to one religion and mythology then who am I to say that there's not something to it?  It would be easy to believe then that there is a certain God, connected with a certain mythology, who does call out to everybody the world over.  But if I can look around me and realize that deep belief in mutually exclusive mythologies is not exclusive to any one religion, how can I reconcile that?  How do believers reconcile that?


To butt in here Horace,

I don't think it matters a bit (at least to me,) what other people think about stuff. Lots of people are wrong about lots of things. Very bright people were wrong about Newtonian physics for the longest time. And for me, my beliefs are and have been pretty universal with lots of people for the longest time. For what it's worth, the Catholic Church is a pretty well thought out organization as far as theology goes--it's systematic and seamless (well, to a great extent.) So at least for me there isn't any need to search elsewhere. It would kill me to take a copy of the Bible and try to make sense of it. There are a million ways of looking at the stuff that's in there. Now people do do it all the time--and there are thousands of churches each fitting a different's person's understanding of what the Bible means. But for me kind of stick to a tried and true method that seems pretty well thought out and that answers all my questions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Frank_W
Apr 10 2007, 11:02 AM

Just... for the sake of discussion, and to play devil's advocate...

Pretty much what Frank wrote.

I would however add:

I try to follow the simple instruction That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. I do not accept that human beings individually receive divine favour, or grace, through faith. As well I reject the doctrine of original sin completely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Agreed, AC.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
AlbertaCrude
Apr 11 2007, 11:59 AM
I do not accept that human beings individually receive divine favour, or grace, through faith.

I've never bought into that one. What one thinks cannot be as important as what one does, unless of course the most powerful entity in the universe believes in the Orwellian concept of thought-crime.

Of course, in the modern world of Reality TV, Big Brother is no longer watching us. Now it's the other way around.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John, don't confuse "what one thinks" with the status of one's heart.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
But surely a belief just boils down to 'what one thinks', doesn't it? The belief in Christ as the son of God doesn't of itself make one a better person, or a more loving person - there's plenty examples of those in the camp of both Christian and non-Christian who's actions put the lie to that claim.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
My thinking I would sure look to bone that pretty young thing that works in the office might qualify.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Hard to explain it but my belief seems much more to me than just what I think.

After all, as they say, the devil believes in Jesus Christ, too.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
My belief system is constantly evolving. It may be utter crap, but it really DOES better my quality of life in the here and now. If I'm looking for concrete proof, I can reflect on my life and see how it really has turned me around.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Apr 11 2007, 03:35 AM
Horace
Apr 10 2007, 11:51 PM
But if I can look around me and realize that deep belief in mutually exclusive mythologies is not exclusive to any one religion, how can I reconcile that?  How do believers reconcile that?


b. that Jesus Christ is the Incarnation of this God, that Jesus Christ is fully God and human, and that in Christ's life, death, and physical ressurection humanity is both shown the ultimate, most perfect illustration of God's truth and God's will for our living; as well as being the vehicle by which humanity, who now lives in a broken relationship with God, may be reconciled and returned to proper relationship with God.

That's what I believe, 100%. Anything else, and any specific details of those things, are at best interpretations or opinions. My first comment in this thread referenced that, as Deb has pointed out, that no one can have "100% knowledge of God", and therefore, can't have 100% knowledge of all the answers - even if they may have 100% belief in certain baseline points.

Here are some other things that I believe, with less than 100% understanding of the details.

While some Christians (and those of other faiths) feel otherwise, I do not believe that Christianity is "mutually exclusive" with Judaism, Islam, paganism, etc.

Thanks, Dewey. That's really all I meant by saying "100% indisputable knowledge of God". I was referring to His existence and, for Christians, (most importantly) the divinity of Jesus. The divinity of Jesus is mutually exclusive with the mythologies of other religions like Judaism or Islam, but it's something you have 100% certainty of. Given that, my original question from this thread seems valid - do you assume that no other practitioner of any other religion since the dawn of time has ever achieved your level of certainty about certain facets of their religion's mythology which are exlusive with Jesus' divinity? I grant you that belief in the existence of a "God" doesn't necessarily contradict other religions (depending on how specific the belief is) but the divinity of Jesus seems a sticking point to me when the mythologies of Judaism and Islam explicitly declare the opposite. Surely there are believers from those religions who would at least claim to have the same certainty of that, that you have in the opposite. I am interested in how you reconcile that - it seems like you'd have to just know that they don't actually know to the extent that they think they know (while at the same time realizing they "know" the same about you). But the essential humility of faith is blown away by that scenario and therein lies a big problem for me.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Horace
Apr 12 2007, 01:14 AM
Dewey
Apr 11 2007, 03:35 AM
Horace
Apr 10 2007, 11:51 PM
But if I can look around me and realize that deep belief in mutually exclusive mythologies is not exclusive to any one religion, how can I reconcile that?  How do believers reconcile that?


b. that Jesus Christ is the Incarnation of this God, that Jesus Christ is fully God and human, and that in Christ's life, death, and physical ressurection humanity is both shown the ultimate, most perfect illustration of God's truth and God's will for our living; as well as being the vehicle by which humanity, who now lives in a broken relationship with God, may be reconciled and returned to proper relationship with God.

That's what I believe, 100%. Anything else, and any specific details of those things, are at best interpretations or opinions. My first comment in this thread referenced that, as Deb has pointed out, that no one can have "100% knowledge of God", and therefore, can't have 100% knowledge of all the answers - even if they may have 100% belief in certain baseline points.

Here are some other things that I believe, with less than 100% understanding of the details.

While some Christians (and those of other faiths) feel otherwise, I do not believe that Christianity is "mutually exclusive" with Judaism, Islam, paganism, etc.

Thanks, Dewey. That's really all I meant by saying "100% indisputable knowledge of God". I was referring to His existence and, for Christians, (most importantly) the divinity of Jesus. The divinity of Jesus is mutually exclusive with the mythologies of other religions like Judaism or Islam, but it's something you have 100% certainty of. Given that, my original question from this thread seems valid - do you assume that no other practitioner of any other religion since the dawn of time has ever achieved your level of certainty about certain facets of their religion's mythology which are exlusive with Jesus' divinity? I grant you that belief in the existence of a "God" doesn't necessarily contradict other religions (depending on how specific the belief is) but the divinity of Jesus seems a sticking point to me when the mythologies of Judaism and Islam explicitly declare the opposite. Surely there are believers from those religions who would at least claim to have the same certainty of that, that you have in the opposite. I am interested in how you reconcile that - it seems like you'd have to just know that they don't actually know to the extent that they think they know (while at the same time realizing they "know" the same about you). But the essential humility of faith is blown away by that scenario and therein lies a big problem for me.

Hi Horace, sorry for the delay in answering; I was out of town & just got back home.

For starters, I would say one thing. I understand that in the strict academic sense, the terms "myth" and "mythology" do not connote truth or falseness. However, since the more common usage of the term does carry the implication of a lack of factual basis, out of respect, I try not to use the term when discussing religious issues, whether they're my own beliefs or the beliefs of others. Just a personal quirk.

To your real question though, yes; the divinity of Jesus Christ is pretty much the "redline" fundamental to me, and which is mutually exclusive to most other faith traditions. I certainly grant that there are others as certain of Jesus' lack of divinity as I am of his divinity. I simply hold that one of us is mistaken on that issue. I feel that for a person to be able to have certainty about an unprovable issue - more to the point, to be correct about an unprovable premise - doesn't require universal acceptance of that premise. The mere fact that others are equally certain of their (opposite) belief is neither proof for or against the ultimate correctness of my, or their, opinion.

To take it one step further, I expect and hope that everyone is certain of their beliefs - that they've considered the important issues of life that religious faith addresses, and that they've made thoughtful decisions that they are confident in. I can feel that others are 100%, totally incorrect in their ultimate beliefs, while still having great respect for their "faith journey" if you will, and for them as individuals. The part of this issue that gets sticky is the whole eternal life issue, often framed in terms of "what about good people who aren't Christian - are they going to Hell?" It's an important aspect of my Christian faith that while I am charged with sharing the details of my faith, I'm not charged with beating people over the head to become believers. The flip side of that coin is that I'm instructed to not spend much time or effort worrying about who is, or isn't, going to inherit eternal life - that ultimately, it isn't up to me, or the other individual, but it is entirely up to God - and if, as I believe, God is the truest definition of, and synthesis of, love, mercy, and justice, however God ultimately sorts it out, it will be the most loving, merciful, and just decision possible. God's on the case; I can think about other tasks that as a believer I'm supposed to be dealing with.

Does that come close to where you were headed with your question?
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Apr 11 2007, 11:43 AM
This is akin to one of the mathematical paradoxes which goes:

"Is the set of all sets, itself a set?" The paradox is that it must be set but if it is set it would have to contain itself which is impossible. The problem however is i think trivial as it's simply because we are able to contruct weird sentences. One can neatly avoid the paradox by rephrasing the question as "is the set of all other sets, itself a set?" to which the answer is "yes".

How wonderful you brought up sets, one of my favorite topics in maths :lol: I can't resist being a smartass :rolleyes:

In standard set theory, the collection of all sets is not a set.

However, the collection of all "other" sets is not a set either. The
axiom schema of set specification demands that you must already have an existing set that is a superset of the set that you want to construct by a predicate. This is not possible using your "other" formulation, hence the answer to your last question is in fact "no".

In some other axiomatizations of sets, such as Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory you can indeed form the collection of all sets. Collections that are too big to be sets are called "classes" there.

Back to the question
Quote:
 
Are you absolutely certain that there are no absolute certainties?


I doubt that this is the answer the poster is looking for :wink:, but in Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory one could indeed give a "yes" answer to this question without arriving at a contradiction, namely by organizing the certainties about statements in a hierarchy, whereby you would be certain only about those statements that are on a lower level than the certainty statement itself.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Apr 13 2007, 12:36 PM

Hi Horace, sorry for the delay in answering; I was out of town & just got back home.

For starters, I would say one thing. I understand that in the strict academic sense, the terms "myth" and "mythology" do not connote truth or falseness. However, since the more common usage of the term does carry the implication of a lack of factual basis, out of respect, I try not to use the term when discussing religious issues, whether they're my own beliefs or the beliefs of others. Just a personal quirk.

To your real question though, yes; the divinity of Jesus Christ is pretty much the "redline" fundamental to me, and which is mutually exclusive to most other faith traditions. I certainly grant that there are others as certain of Jesus' lack of divinity as I am of his divinity. I simply hold that one of us is mistaken on that issue. I feel that for a person to be able to have certainty about an unprovable issue - more to the point, to be correct about an unprovable premise - doesn't require universal acceptance of that premise. The mere fact that others are equally certain of their (opposite) belief is neither proof for or against the ultimate correctness of my, or their, opinion.

To take it one step further, I expect and hope that everyone is certain of their beliefs - that they've considered the important issues of life that religious faith addresses, and that they've made thoughtful decisions that they are confident in. I can feel that others are 100%, totally incorrect in their ultimate beliefs, while still having great respect for their "faith journey" if you will, and for them as individuals. The part of this issue that gets sticky is the whole eternal life issue, often framed in terms of "what about good people who aren't Christian - are they going to Hell?" It's an important aspect of my Christian faith that while I am charged with sharing the details of my faith, I'm not charged with beating people over the head to become believers. The flip side of that coin is that I'm instructed to not spend much time or effort worrying about who is, or isn't, going to inherit eternal life - that ultimately, it isn't up to me, or the other individual, but it is entirely up to God - and if, as I believe, God is the truest definition of, and synthesis of, love, mercy, and justice, however God ultimately sorts it out, it will be the most loving, merciful, and just decision possible. God's on the case; I can think about other tasks that as a believer I'm supposed to be dealing with.

Does that come close to where you were headed with your question?

Thanks Dewey. I'm sorry for using the word "mythology", it sounds like "tradition" is a more acceptable word.

And thanks for answering my questions fairly directly. From your answers it's a pretty short logical jump to see that my original post is a valid description of how you feel about followers of other religions who's traditions contradict Christianity. They simply do not and could not possibly believe as strongly as you do. They think they believe as strongly as possible (to the extent of 100% knowledge) but they are necessarily wrong. Only you and others who believe in the traditions of your religion are capable of having such knowledge.

So you acknowledge that some humans are capable of being wrong about something they have 100% knowledge of, but you also believe that you are not such a human. You "know truth when you see it" and they only think they do.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pianojerome
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Klaus
Apr 13 2007, 05:25 PM
Back to the question
Quote:
 
Are you absolutely certain that there are no absolute certainties?


I doubt that this is the answer the poster is looking for :wink:, but in Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory one could indeed give a "yes" answer to this question without arriving at a contradiction, namely by organizing the certainties about statements in a hierarchy, whereby you would be certain only about those statements that are on a lower level than the certainty statement itself.

However you build the hierarchy, you are still suggesting that it is an absolute certainty that there are no absolute certainties -- and that in itself, even at the top of the hierarchy, is an absolute statement.

It's like saying that in a tyrant dictatorship, nobody is free to do as he pleases... except the dictator, but he doesn't count because he's the one who decides that nobody else can be free. So it would be correct to say that *most* people in that society are not free, but you can't say "all" of them are not free -- because the dictator is also a person in that society, no matter how much he tries to separate himself, and no matter how he positions himself in the social hierarchy.
Sam
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

However, the collection of all "other" sets is not a set either. The
axiom schema of set specification demands that you must already have an existing set that is a superset of the set that you want to construct by a predicate. This is not possible using your "other" formulation, hence the answer to your last question is in fact "no".

In some other axiomatizations of sets, such as Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory you can indeed form the collection of all sets. Collections that are too big to be sets are called "classes" there.


Intriguing - thanks for the clarification. I guess that my point was simply that paradoxes invariably involve asking bad questions, the solution always involves modifying the questions rather than attempting to look for an impossible answer.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

However you build the hierarchy, you are still suggesting that it is an absolute certainty that there are no absolute certainties -- and that in itself, even at the top of the hierarchy, is an absolute statement.


There is no problem, we can have absolute certainty e.g. cogito ergo sum, we just can't have absolute certainty with regards to a description of nature that is not self referential.

The statement "we just can't have absolute certainty with regards to a description of nature that is no self referential" is self referential.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2