ghgroenewold--The framers did make that distinction, and if you want to swap quotes on the Christianity of our founders from historical documents, I'd be glad to take that challenge any day, though it is time consuming.

Jefferson himself heartily endorsed public funds spent on Christian missionaries.

So much for his supposed "wall."

graphictruth--If it's not biblical Christianity, it's false, from any perspective. Your assumption that there is an "external perspective" belies your own philosophic precommitment on the nature of religion, a precommitment which I submit cannot withstand scrutiny.

sohil--Perhaps you excluded a valid third option--revising your own view and thanking me (a...

ghgroenewold--The framers did make that distinction, and if you want to swap quotes on the Christianity of our founders from historical documents, I'd be glad to take that challenge any day, though it is time consuming.

Jefferson himself heartily endorsed public funds spent on Christian missionaries.

So much for his supposed "wall."

graphictruth--If it's not biblical Christianity, it's false, from any perspective. Your assumption that there is an "external perspective" belies your own philosophic precommitment on the nature of religion, a precommitment which I submit cannot withstand scrutiny.

sohil--Perhaps you excluded a valid third option--revising your own view and thanking me (and others) for helping you see your error.

I am happy to provide comic relief; it's good for us, and helps keep heated debate at a cordial level, which I think is imperative.

I'd still hoist a Guiness with you while trashing your anti-Christian lies with a smile.

righthand--It's interesting that you impliedly equate the floor of the Senate with the temple of God.

The Lord threw out those who turned His house into a den of thieves, not those who proclaimed Him as the only Lord and Savior of men. How do you conclude that people who seem to acknowledge the substance of Christ's own words would be subject to His angry disapproval?

It seems to me they love both God and neighbor (not to peer into their hearts, but their actions seem to support finding that they have a a very committed love to both, if misguided, which I think it may have been...not unlike the water tower proclamation of love...touching, but vandalism just the same).

The Bible says that if you turn someone from their sin, you have acted very lovingly. Therefore, their attempts toward this end are not unloving.

Christian love is not about a warm fuzzy, but about action with the best interest of the subject in mind. I see no conflict between this principle and their actions. Therefore, no hypocrisy.

"...If it's not biblical Christianity, it's false, from any perspective."

The U.S. Senate (Hearing) is a governmental function. The document that empowers that governmental function is the U.S. Constitution.

It begins: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."

You might be right thunderscot...but your statement about Christianity and the bible are simply not relevant.

Our government is not run by [or for] any god, nor does it belong to any god. It is run by and for (as stated in the very first sentence...) WE THE PEOPLE.

The Constitution is our governing document, not a god or a pretense to a book writen by one. Your stateme...

"...If it's not biblical Christianity, it's false, from any perspective."

The U.S. Senate (Hearing) is a governmental function. The document that empowers that governmental function is the U.S. Constitution.

It begins: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."

You might be right thunderscot...but your statement about Christianity and the bible are simply not relevant.

Our government is not run by [or for] any god, nor does it belong to any god. It is run by and for (as stated in the very first sentence...) WE THE PEOPLE.

The Constitution is our governing document, not a god or a pretense to a book writen by one. Your statement that the protesters were not hypocritical is therefore hypocritical.

(But then, I'm perfectly sure you were aware of that when you made the statement. Surely you made it for shock value, and not for any truthful content.)

Thunderscot, I didn't say anything about a wall. Don't put words in my mouth. If there were truly a wall between church and state, this prayer would not have happened and neither would there be any Christian prayers in our legislature.

You made a categorical statement about the founding fathers and the way they regarded religion. I showed a counterexample from the writings of one of our founding fathers. That any such counterexample exists clearly shows that the real situation is more complex than you wish to portray it as being.

The only evidence for there being only one true religion is in the bible. If you do not already believe in the incontrovertible truthfulness of the bible that evi...

Thunderscot, I didn't say anything about a wall. Don't put words in my mouth. If there were truly a wall between church and state, this prayer would not have happened and neither would there be any Christian prayers in our legislature.

You made a categorical statement about the founding fathers and the way they regarded religion. I showed a counterexample from the writings of one of our founding fathers. That any such counterexample exists clearly shows that the real situation is more complex than you wish to portray it as being.

The only evidence for there being only one true religion is in the bible. If you do not already believe in the incontrovertible truthfulness of the bible that evidence means nothing. There are literally thousands of religions in the world, many making the same arrogant claim to exclusivity of truth. Personally, I see no reason not to reject all such claims.

AcesLucky--If you'll read back before my post, I wrote that in response to a direct question posed to me.

ghroenewold--The "wall" referred to a concept widely attributed to Jefferson that has little connection to Jefferson's actual thoughts on the subject, in my opinion. I was not attempting to put words in your mouth.

The "categorical" statement to which you refer is what is called a generalization. Generalizations are meant to hold true generally. And generally, I feel comfortable being able to demonstrate that the framers distinguished between true religion and false religion, with Christianity occupying the former category.

Anomalous exceptions do but prove the rule. Even if your ...

AcesLucky--If you'll read back before my post, I wrote that in response to a direct question posed to me.

ghroenewold--The "wall" referred to a concept widely attributed to Jefferson that has little connection to Jefferson's actual thoughts on the subject, in my opinion. I was not attempting to put words in your mouth.

The "categorical" statement to which you refer is what is called a generalization. Generalizations are meant to hold true generally. And generally, I feel comfortable being able to demonstrate that the framers distinguished between true religion and false religion, with Christianity occupying the former category.

Anomalous exceptions do but prove the rule. Even if your quote supports the notion that Jefferson made no distinction between true and false religion (a point not conceded), you have but shown us an exception to the rule.

Many (maybe you, maybe not) think they have their unChristian framers in Jefferson and Franklin, and perhaps they do. But there is a lot of evidence from these men's own writings that if they were not actual believers, they at least accepted the lion's share of Christian philosophy in their political viewpoints.

Aside from that, the framers, as a general group, very demonstrably acknowledged the distinction between true religion and false religion/superstition. That is all I intended to assert.

I disagree with your statement that the only evidence is in the Bible, but I readily acknowledge that the best and most reliable evidence is there.

I do not think it necessary to first assent to the doctrines of the Bible's infallibility and inerrancy in order to assess its claims of exclusive truthfulness. I do not see that as a logical necessity. One can view it as authoritative in a lesser sense and reliable and still honestly evaluate its evidence for its claims.

If Christianity is true, then there is a reason not to reject its claim to exclusive truth.

thunderscot

Perhaps they distinguish between religion and false religion and superstition, as the framers of our Constitution did. That is not hypocritical.

graphictruth:

"How does one discern what a "false" religion is, by the by, from an external perspective?"

thunderscot:

If it's not biblical Christianity, it's false, from any perspective.

AcesLucky: Even if we pretend that you're right [which you're not]..."your statement about Christianity and the bible are simply not relevant." NO religion should preceede a governmental function; "We the people..." does not include a god.


But if we allow it, it sh...

thunderscot

Perhaps they distinguish between religion and false religion and superstition, as the framers of our Constitution did. That is not hypocritical.

graphictruth:

"How does one discern what a "false" religion is, by the by, from an external perspective?"

thunderscot:

If it's not biblical Christianity, it's false, from any perspective.

AcesLucky: Even if we pretend that you're right [which you're not]..."your statement about Christianity and the bible are simply not relevant." NO religion should preceede a governmental function; "We the people..." does not include a god.


But if we allow it, it should be fair and open to all religions --- or none at all.

You were claiming, however, that the PROTESTERS were not hypocritical because they are right about the TRUE religion. (Whether any Framers could tell the difference or not is unimportant!)

What IS important is whether the protesters have a monopoly on dogma, such that THEIR religion is worthy of belief while every other religion is not. To wit...

When they are ALL based on faith, they are all equally incredible. To suggest otherwise is to admit hypocrisy.

Thus ghgroenewold's statement: "These hypocrites want more interaction between religion and public policy, but only when it is their religion."

Your statement that: "If it's not biblical Christianity, it's false, from any perspective." is by itself hypocritical and false at face value.

Christianity, like many others, is based on FAITH, and you know that faith is epistemologically invalid as a means of knowing anything (because it can't tell a true from a false proposition).

Your above statement therefore cannot be true (from any perspective). Christianity is clearly no different than any other. Therein lies the hypocracy of which ghgroenewold spoke.

Your oft-repeated "we the people" argument seems to preclude the possibility of we the people acknowledging and even codifying a duty to God the Creator, something that is very clearly done in the Declaration, every state constitution at the time (and most now), very demonstrably in the thoughts of those coming together in agreement, and impliedly in the Constitution itself.

There is , therefore, no such preclusion inherent in your favorite phrase. Why not more explicit in the Constitution itself? I'm not sure. I wish they had spelled it out, but I'm guessing that they never in a million years anticipated such a rapid descent into moral, intellectual and spiritual darkness, and so they...

Your oft-repeated "we the people" argument seems to preclude the possibility of we the people acknowledging and even codifying a duty to God the Creator, something that is very clearly done in the Declaration, every state constitution at the time (and most now), very demonstrably in the thoughts of those coming together in agreement, and impliedly in the Constitution itself.

There is , therefore, no such preclusion inherent in your favorite phrase. Why not more explicit in the Constitution itself? I'm not sure. I wish they had spelled it out, but I'm guessing that they never in a million years anticipated such a rapid descent into moral, intellectual and spiritual darkness, and so they saw no need.

Or, perhaps they had been so clear in everything else they said, that they simply thought it was mere surplusage to go beyond the strong implications within the document. I don't know; can't explain it.

I don't need to, however, because when I make an assertion about the framers, I make a statement about people, not limited to one particular of their works, so I am not confined to that one work in supporting my assertion. Nor did you confine yourself to it in making your case, I might point out.

NO religion should preceede a governmental function;

That is your assertion, but I hold the exact opposite view, and feel comfortable that the framers *in general* did, as well. No governmental function precedes the duty to God, and every government is subordinate to the government of Heaven. If you want to go the historical quote swap route on this, we can.

In fact, the Declaration of Independence rests upon the assumption I just articulated, and therefore without, we have not nation.

I hate to do four comments, y'all, but this format doesn't support these discussions very well.


By declaring faith to be utterly devoid of propositional
content, you have coyly excused yourself from the playing field where
we must line up the propositional contents of faith and analyze them.


You simply announce that analysis is impossible, and take your ball and
go home without so much as a mud stain on your knee. Sneaky!

My response to your absurd epistemological assertion that faith can have nothing to do with knowledge got lost in cyber space somehow, but I'll re-summarize it now.

You *have to* merely accept that there is such a thing as reality, such a thing as knowledge of that ...

I hate to do four comments, y'all, but this format doesn't support these discussions very well.


By declaring faith to be utterly devoid of propositional
content, you have coyly excused yourself from the playing field where
we must line up the propositional contents of faith and analyze them.


You simply announce that analysis is impossible, and take your ball and
go home without so much as a mud stain on your knee. Sneaky!

My response to your absurd epistemological assertion that faith can have nothing to do with knowledge got lost in cyber space somehow, but I'll re-summarize it now.

You *have to* merely accept that there is such a thing as reality, such a thing as knowledge of that reality, that it is knowable, that laws of logic exist, that are reliable, that relate to other necessary tools of knowing (i.e. grammar, math, etc) that communication is possible and meaningful, that perception is reliable. And so on.

You accept these things on faith before you even *start* to know anything. So, to say that there can be no knowledge based on faith requires one of the most unproven unprovable leaps of faith imaginable!

*Even if,* and the if is impossible here, but even if you could say that these things could be empirically verified, you can not with a straight face maintain that any but those of the most advanced intellects among us could actually do so.

And therefore, on your theory, no one else but these few (assuming they've actually verified them) knows anything, because they do not have knowledge of even the knowledge-getting tools.

Faith and reason work in tandem necessarily. All knowledge is not merely logical and propositional, nor is faith devoid of propositional content, which content is subject to logical analysis.

I wonder at how long, however, I will continue a discussion on laws of logic, when you make statements like this:

When they are ALL based on faith, they are all equally incredible. To suggest otherwise is to admit hypocrisy

This is nonsensical, but let me not merely assert. Let's analyze:

"Nothing is known by faith."
"All religion is based on faith."
"Therefore, to deny this is to not really have faith in a religion."

Aside from the utter falsity of the premises, this is logically incoherent. Believe what you want to about this stuff, your logic stinks. This little blurb is just one example to point out what happens over and over again in your posts.

I'm happy to go bac...

I wonder at how long, however, I will continue a discussion on laws of logic, when you make statements like this:

When they are ALL based on faith, they are all equally incredible. To suggest otherwise is to admit hypocrisy

This is nonsensical, but let me not merely assert. Let's analyze:

"Nothing is known by faith."
"All religion is based on faith."
"Therefore, to deny this is to not really have faith in a religion."

Aside from the utter falsity of the premises, this is logically incoherent. Believe what you want to about this stuff, your logic stinks. This little blurb is just one example to point out what happens over and over again in your posts.

I'm happy to go back and forth till the cows come home, but quit pretending like Christianity is somehow illogical and your religion is. It's far from it...because its faith is in the wrong things.

You have to believe in the right things to think rightly.

In fact, the Declaration of Independence rests upon the assumption I just articulated, and therefore without, we have not nation.

False!

Bait and switch. We're talking about the document of governance, the Constitution; not the Declaration.

Besides, some of the framers believed in a deity and some didn't. That IN NO WAY implies they wanted a government led by an invisible deity. You make a false assumption that they intended otherwise.

Ethan Allen - Revolutionary secularist, authored Reason the Only Oracle of Man. Ben Franklin - called himself a "thorough Deist" rejecting churches, rituals, and "supernatural superstitions." George Washington - ...

In fact, the Declaration of Independence rests upon the assumption I just articulated, and therefore without, we have not nation.

False!

Bait and switch. We're talking about the document of governance, the Constitution; not the Declaration.

Besides, some of the framers believed in a deity and some didn't. That IN NO WAY implies they wanted a government led by an invisible deity. You make a false assumption that they intended otherwise.

Ethan Allen - Revolutionary secularist, authored Reason the Only Oracle of Man. Ben Franklin - called himself a "thorough Deist" rejecting churches, rituals, and "supernatural superstitions." George Washington - initiated such documents as The Treaty of Tripoli, which states, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

John Adams - also supported a secular state and SIGNED the Treaty of Tripoli while PRESIDENT! He opposed doctrines of supernaturalism or of eternal damnation. Thomas Jefferson - author of the Declaration of Independence repeatedly attacked religions's practices as superstitions, referring to the clerical establishment as "cannibal priests". (He had to tone it down to accommodate the other believers.) He did not believe in the Trinity or in the divinity of Jesus Christ. (The Genuine Articles: Uncensored) . James Madison - father of the Constitution apposed all use of "religion as an engine of civil policy."

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the U.S. documents of governance. The Declaration is NOT.

The Declaration had just one purpose: to dissolve the political ties with England.

thunderscot: regarding your tortured logic...
AcesLucky:

When they are ALL based on faith, they are all equally incredible. To suggest otherwise is to admit hypocrisy

thunderscot:

This is nonsensical, but let me not merely assert. Let's analyze:


"Nothing is known by faith."
"All religion is based on faith."
"Therefore, to deny this is to not really have faith in a religion."


Aside from the utter falsity of the premises, this is logically incoherent.
You exactly right. Of course my logic stated nothing like it. Let's analyze what it really means:

"Nothing is known by faith."
"Knowledge FROM faith, is therefore incredibl...

thunderscot: regarding your tortured logic...
AcesLucky:

When they are ALL based on faith, they are all equally incredible. To suggest otherwise is to admit hypocrisy

thunderscot:

This is nonsensical, but let me not merely assert. Let's analyze:


"Nothing is known by faith."
"All religion is based on faith."
"Therefore, to deny this is to not really have faith in a religion."


Aside from the utter falsity of the premises, this is logically incoherent.
You exactly right. Of course my logic stated nothing like it. Let's analyze what it really means:

"Nothing is known by faith."
"Knowledge FROM faith, is therefore incredible."

That being the case, religions that rely on faith should be treated equally with regard to government functions, as they are all founded on the same principle of faith."

In other words, treat them all the same. Either let them all have at it, or none. No religion based on faith can be inherently better than another religion also based on faith. [For the simple fact that "nothing is known by faith."]

Hi,
I just wanted to jump in hear. The comment below is actually from another post I just made on another pop. I thought it to be relevant to this pop as well.
------------------------------------------------
I first just want to say the motives for my statements are not to offend or anger anyone but rather to try to get people to stop and think about things a little. I would like to get people who are a little too confident in their justification of their beliefs in their religion to be shaken awake to the fact that what they believe to be absolute truths are in reality just their beliefs. Believing something to be "truth" does not make it "truth". If their is an absolute truth, God,...

Hi,
I just wanted to jump in hear. The comment below is actually from another post I just made on another pop. I thought it to be relevant to this pop as well.
------------------------------------------------
I first just want to say the motives for my statements are not to offend or anger anyone but rather to try to get people to stop and think about things a little. I would like to get people who are a little too confident in their justification of their beliefs in their religion to be shaken awake to the fact that what they believe to be absolute truths are in reality just their beliefs. Believing something to be "truth" does not make it "truth". If their is an absolute truth, God, out there, it is only He that can claim to know what the truth is. As it stands, no human has the ability to prove he or she knows what the absolute truth is. As long as this is the case, no human can justifiably claim to know any aspect of the absolute truth let alone justify using such claims to know what the absolute truth is to control another human.

I do believe there is an absolute truth. I also know that my belief is not justification to do anything to another human no matter what it may be. Because I would never claim to know what God says or wants, others will always be justified to challenge me on any power I might try to impose on another. The moment I claim justification by claiming "God tells me or us" I'm attempting to claim to know the absolute truth. This amounts to saying the I am on the same level as God. Some say that God has shown them the absolute truth. Unless they can prove this to be true, they will never be justified to use this claim to hold power over other humans. (continued on next post)

( continued from last post)

Religion is used to control people. They do this by claiming to know the mind of God, what He thinks, wants, commands. The problem with this is, no human can know these things. These things can not be proved. How can one human know with such complete certainty, the mind of God, to justify the dictation to another human what God wants, says, thinks, demands, commands.... How arrogant to think you know the mind of God with such certainty that you can justify controlling any other human in any way shape or form.

As to the negative effects of religion, what about the Millions of people who have been killed in the name of God and religion. Christianity and ...

( continued from last post)

Religion is used to control people. They do this by claiming to know the mind of God, what He thinks, wants, commands. The problem with this is, no human can know these things. These things can not be proved. How can one human know with such complete certainty, the mind of God, to justify the dictation to another human what God wants, says, thinks, demands, commands.... How arrogant to think you know the mind of God with such certainty that you can justify controlling any other human in any way shape or form.

As to the negative effects of religion, what about the Millions of people who have been killed in the name of God and religion. Christianity and Islam being two of the worst offenders.

Going back to the fact that no human can prove anything about God or any writing professed to be directly from God, this alone is enough to move away from such belief systems that have overwhelmingly caused more harm than good, death being only one negative effect to come from them. We can teach Good Morality and achieve the same few good effects of religion without all the rest of the garbage of religions negative effects. It is not logical to hang onto such things as a religion, a thing that can never be proved to be from God. When you take a true and honest comprehensive look at the true history of religion. Looking at it with open eyes, meaning not looking at it from a prospective of wanting to find justification for its continued existence, you just might to change your mind about religion.

Be glad to--The explanation is in the comment that notes the many things that must be believed prior to any logical reasoning, which things cannot themselves be either logically demonstrated nor empirically verified. The laws of logic are one such "thing" that must be believed prior to actually reasoning logically. A few others are mentioned, as well.

If you would like to attempt a logical demonstration of the existence of the laws of logic, or attempt to verify them empirically, I would enjoy reading that.

Please note that I have not endorsed the actions described in the clip. I have merely taken issue with the description of them as hypocritical. I trust you would at least be fair ...

Be glad to--The explanation is in the comment that notes the many things that must be believed prior to any logical reasoning, which things cannot themselves be either logically demonstrated nor empirically verified. The laws of logic are one such "thing" that must be believed prior to actually reasoning logically. A few others are mentioned, as well.

If you would like to attempt a logical demonstration of the existence of the laws of logic, or attempt to verify them empirically, I would enjoy reading that.

Please note that I have not endorsed the actions described in the clip. I have merely taken issue with the description of them as hypocritical. I trust you would at least be fair enough to accurately represent my statements. You didn't say I did endorse them expressly; but I'm not sure whether you meant to imply that I did.

I personally am bothered that any governmental function would occur without being thoroughly bathed in prayer to God, the giver of Wisdom and on whose good Providence our nation's existence depends.

JohnWaterman--First, I want to apologize for adding "Giggle" at the end of one of my comments. That was smart-ass of me, and unwarranted. Please forgive me. I got carried away.

Second, we may not agree, but please try to understand something about my motivations here.

I do not think that intellectual rigor or ability is a measure of a person's worth. In fact, my Christianity prevents that attitude completely.

If I have come across heavy-handed in arguing for Christianity, it is because the primary line of attack on Christian faith in the comments has been a claim that it is contrary to reason. In responding to such an attack, I necessarily use reason to show the falseness of the claim.
...

JohnWaterman--First, I want to apologize for adding "Giggle" at the end of one of my comments. That was smart-ass of me, and unwarranted. Please forgive me. I got carried away.

Second, we may not agree, but please try to understand something about my motivations here.

I do not think that intellectual rigor or ability is a measure of a person's worth. In fact, my Christianity prevents that attitude completely.

If I have come across heavy-handed in arguing for Christianity, it is because the primary line of attack on Christian faith in the comments has been a claim that it is contrary to reason. In responding to such an attack, I necessarily use reason to show the falseness of the claim.

But, I do not worship reason, nor do I think one's value to God has anything to do with one's propensity for the more abstract logical argumentation.

The only reason I said anything to you about not making reasoned arguments is that you quipped "how can you reason with these people." In fact, you weren't and aren't even trying to. That's fine by me, but don't say "we're" the ones not reasoning here.

Third--I think you should extend the courtesy you ask for yourself to other Christians. God has assigned gifts and talents as He has seen fit, and not everyone has been given the same, or even equal measure. That we each steward our allotment faithfully is the real measure of our progress in faithful living.

I have no doubt that most Christians are far more faithful stewards of God's gifts to them than I am of the gifts God has given me, whatever they may be. They may not be particularly adept at this type of argumentation, but it does not therefore mean that there faith is not a reasonable one.

My God is pleased to exalt the lowly and bring low the lofty. Man's highest reason is foolishness to the God who made it, mine included.

I just don't want you to think that I value a person or his opinions based on how logically persuasive he can articulate himself.God sure doesn't.

thunderscot

The explanation is in the comment that notes the many things that must be believed prior to any logical reasoning, which things cannot themselves be either logically demonstrated nor empirically verified. The laws of logic are one such "thing" that must be believed prior to actually reasoning logically.

All these are false. Even the last sentence. The rules of logic need not be believed in order for the rules of logic to be used.

Ex: If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C. This is sound logic whether I believe the logic or not; or whether I believe any of the data (that A is actually larger than B) or not.

Logic is the...

thunderscot

The explanation is in the comment that notes the many things that must be believed prior to any logical reasoning, which things cannot themselves be either logically demonstrated nor empirically verified. The laws of logic are one such "thing" that must be believed prior to actually reasoning logically.

All these are false. Even the last sentence. The rules of logic need not be believed in order for the rules of logic to be used.

Ex: If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C. This is sound logic whether I believe the logic or not; or whether I believe any of the data (that A is actually larger than B) or not.

Logic is the "process" of a truth statement. Like: A>B>C. It says that "given" [an important distinction] that A is greater than B AND that B is greater than C then A>C.

A, B, and C, are not statements of faith (belief), rather they are GIVEN as statements of condition. That is, "IF" A is true and "IF" B is true, and so forth.

So the veracity of A (whether it's really true or not) is always open to scrutiny, but the PROCESS of the logic remains true to form. (This doesn't mean there isn't bad logical form as described by many fallacies.)

(Nor does it mean that the veracity of the input data [A for example] is correct.) For example: suppose you assert there is a god [A] but there really isn't one.

And then let's suppose you use correct logic using "A" as input data (like: A is greater than B).

Your conclusion would be correct PROVIDED that "A" is correct. But, since it's not (correct), what does that make your conclusion? It makes your conclusion FALSE or unreliable.

That's why you should start with facts as your data, not conclusions (that you already believe to be true).

Logic is the "process" of a truth statement.

That is only true if laws of logic are indeed laws, a conclusion which must be assumed, and therefore prior to logical demonstration. Laws of logic cannot account for their own existence.

For you to use them, and base "knowledge" upon them, you must believe they are indeed laws, universal in nature, not subject to change over time, etc. These must be presupposed before you can call the result of a logical process "knowledge." That's my point.

That's why you should start with facts as your data, not conclusions (that you already believe to be true).

This is an interesting statement. If you are calling somethi...

Logic is the "process" of a truth statement.

That is only true if laws of logic are indeed laws, a conclusion which must be assumed, and therefore prior to logical demonstration. Laws of logic cannot account for their own existence.

For you to use them, and base "knowledge" upon them, you must believe they are indeed laws, universal in nature, not subject to change over time, etc. These must be presupposed before you can call the result of a logical process "knowledge." That's my point.

That's why you should start with facts as your data, not conclusions (that you already believe to be true).

This is an interesting statement. If you are calling something a fact, have you not already concluded (i.e.-believed) that it is true?

God's existence is a fact, and I start with that.

I'm guessing you may mean empirical "facts," but you have to go through a lot of presupposing before you can call an empirically sensed thing a "fact."

Besides that, you have to assume a lot of unprovables before you can limit "facts" to things empirically verifiable.

My whole point in this line of discussion is try and show y'all that your beliefs about Christianity rest no less on faith than mine. Faith in and of itself is not opposed to reason, but intimately and inextricably intertwined therewith.

The question becomes, inevitably, the object of your faith. Is the object of your faith reasonable? The Christian God is the object of my faith, and I would assess the object of your faith to be man's (and more particularly, your own) reason.

Deconstruction - A Pain In The Butt

It is only good as an exercise to learn from.

Many try to win arguments by deconstruction. They do this by taking deconstruction to it's inevitable end. But do they don't really win in the end?

All language is built on schema represented by some symbolic system. In the process of assigning schema to symbols, a contexts is build. A single element schema by itself will have no relevant meaning. It is the contextual relationship between these single element schema where you find meaning. These meanings make up another level of schema which symbols are again used to represent them. And so on...

My point is, context is everything. You can not remo...

Deconstruction - A Pain In The Butt

It is only good as an exercise to learn from.

Many try to win arguments by deconstruction. They do this by taking deconstruction to it's inevitable end. But do they don't really win in the end?

All language is built on schema represented by some symbolic system. In the process of assigning schema to symbols, a contexts is build. A single element schema by itself will have no relevant meaning. It is the contextual relationship between these single element schema where you find meaning. These meanings make up another level of schema which symbols are again used to represent them. And so on...

My point is, context is everything. You can not remove arguments out of the context from which they were created. The moment you do so, all meaning is lost. This goes as well with the concept of God.

This is what AcesLucky was eloquently pointing out. In the context within which logic is derived, logic holds true. You can't remove anything out of its context and still find meaning. You can not argue from outside the context. This is what thunderscot is attempting to do. Thunderscot is nontechnically correct in his point but his point becomes meaningless as soon as he makes it. So why go there. You can when any argument by deconstruction... or can you?

Don't forget thunderscot, when you argue using deconstruction, you argue away all meaning of the very argument you are making.

All things are, at the most fundamental level, self referencing.

That is a good discussion of deconstruction, but that's not what I am doing.

The assumptions that deconstructionism seeks to "get back to" tend to be cultural and almost always tend to have to do with groups and subgroups trying to dominate other subgroups.

The result of deconstructionist literary analysis can be interesting, at times, but its own assumptions are subject to its own critique that it springs from a group's own attempts to dominate other groups.

Again, while I can see why some of my discussion of presuppositions may trigger an association in your mind, that school of thought, if it can even be called that, is pretty far from my own.

In particular, I do not share its disda...

That is a good discussion of deconstruction, but that's not what I am doing.

The assumptions that deconstructionism seeks to "get back to" tend to be cultural and almost always tend to have to do with groups and subgroups trying to dominate other subgroups.

The result of deconstructionist literary analysis can be interesting, at times, but its own assumptions are subject to its own critique that it springs from a group's own attempts to dominate other groups.

Again, while I can see why some of my discussion of presuppositions may trigger an association in your mind, that school of thought, if it can even be called that, is pretty far from my own.

In particular, I do not share its disdain for Western Culture by a long shot. A disdain for Western Culture is most often a thinly veiled disdain for the Christian Civilization which has propelled it for most of its "life."

My discussion of presuppositions has more to do with necessary logical beginning points. The points from which a given logical train of thought must begin, without having gotten to those points via that train.

thunderscot
I think this is where things may be getting crossed up a bit. I was not trying to comment on the full scope of your position or arguments of the main topic at had. I should have stated that first. I was just commenting on the single point or response you made regarding AcesLuck's argument involving logic when he gave the logic statement "If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C.".

You were using deconstruction when you stated that even logic's basic concepts are subject to faith. I actually agree with you but only to a point. You are correct but only correct when you step out of the context from within which logic is created. In this case...

thunderscot
I think this is where things may be getting crossed up a bit. I was not trying to comment on the full scope of your position or arguments of the main topic at had. I should have stated that first. I was just commenting on the single point or response you made regarding AcesLuck's argument involving logic when he gave the logic statement "If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C.".

You were using deconstruction when you stated that even logic's basic concepts are subject to faith. I actually agree with you but only to a point. You are correct but only correct when you step out of the context from within which logic is created. In this case outside of the universe or our existence. The problem with this is, the very logic you must use to make this point also losses any framework from which to be made from. In the context of our existence, logic holds true. Stepping outside this context to argue that the basic elements making up logic is a matter of faith is meaningless for to do so makes the vary argument your are using to make this argument also becomes meaningless. You are correct but only when you can use logic to make the statement. But when you make the statement that makes logic meaning less, that statement itself becomes meaningless. It a of paradox. My point I was trying make is that trying to say that logic is based on faith ends up in a paradox and becomes meaningless. It is not useful.

It is pointless to move to a perspective outside of our existence which is where deconstruction takes you because it effectively mutes you from making any arguments, for all framework from which to argue from then no longer exist.

If this does not help, I will give it some though about how better to make my point.

-----------------------------------
Many may disagree but do believe in, for lack of a better work, a God. It is He that has accesses to, or makes up the existence beyond our existence. I also kn

"For you to use them, and base "knowledge" upon them, you must believe they are indeed laws, universal in nature, not subject to change over time, etc. These must be presupposed before you can call the result of a logical process "knowledge." That's my point."

But it's not true. Our "knowledge" changes with greater understanding BECAUSE we hold open the input data (facts, such as A or B) for continued scrutiny.

A non changing conclusion, such as "god exists" held as input data that is unchangeable, continues to yield false conclusions BECAUSE it's not open for continued scrutiny.

--

"This is an interesting statement. If you are calling something a fact, have you not...

read more»

"For you to use them, and base "knowledge" upon them, you must believe they are indeed laws, universal in nature, not subject to change over time, etc. These must be presupposed before you can call the result of a logical process "knowledge." That's my point."

But it's not true. Our "knowledge" changes with greater understanding BECAUSE we hold open the input data (facts, such as A or B) for continued scrutiny.

A non changing conclusion, such as "god exists" held as input data that is unchangeable, continues to yield false conclusions BECAUSE it's not open for continued scrutiny.

--

"This is an interesting statement. If you are calling something a fact, have you not already concluded (i.e.-believed) that it is true?"

Not necessarily. I'm talking about direct data, not necessarily the conclusions about that data. Ex: if I define "red" as light waves w/n a specific bandwidth and my instruments confirm the bandwidth, isn't it "red" even though my colorblindness makes it look gray? The data is factually red; never mind what I believe "about" the data.
--

"God's existence is a fact, and I start with that."

The difference, my friend, is that you start with a "fact" that is not falsifiable !

[Wikipedia]

"Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

If God is conceived of as an unobservable transcendental being, then one could not disprove his existence by observation. The assertion 'God exists' would be unfalsifiable because of the nature of God. On the other hand, the assertion 'God does not exist' is falsifiable. This assertion can be falsifiable by demonstrating the existence of God."

Your so-called fact dooms you to a false or unreliable conclusion because it can never be demonstrated. It can never serve as a reliable datum of information.

GIGO.

ezsparky:

You were using deconstruction when you stated that even logic's basic concepts are subject to faith.

That was what I assumed you were talking about, so no misunderstanding, it doesn't appear. But disagreement remains, in that I think your characterization of my argument as deconstructionistic is inaccurate.

I think that to suggest that my position on this point refers to a universe not in existence is to presume that faith and logic are polar opposites, having nothing to do with each other, which is the very conclusion under scrutiny here.

I am very much talking about the universe in existence, and in that universe, logic laws must be assumed, without being demonst...

ezsparky:

You were using deconstruction when you stated that even logic's basic concepts are subject to faith.

That was what I assumed you were talking about, so no misunderstanding, it doesn't appear. But disagreement remains, in that I think your characterization of my argument as deconstructionistic is inaccurate.

I think that to suggest that my position on this point refers to a universe not in existence is to presume that faith and logic are polar opposites, having nothing to do with each other, which is the very conclusion under scrutiny here.

I am very much talking about the universe in existence, and in that universe, logic laws must be assumed, without being demonstrated, either logically or empirically. I absolutely am not stepping outside the context in which logic was created (a turn of words I rather favor!).

In fact, I expressly affirm that there is no other universe or context.

Furthermore, I would not say, as you have suggested, "in the context of our existence, logic holds true." I would recognize that logic holds true necessarily, in that it reflects the mind of its Creator, which is not subject to nor capable of alteration, being necessarily perfect and without any flaw or error or need/possibility of modification.

In fact, that brings me to the point. It is positively my assertion that without this assumption--conscious or not--the laws of logic are not possible and cannot be accounted for.

I don't mean to drag you into a discussion you want to sit out of for a bit. I think pause and reflection are good things, so I assure you I will infer nothing else from your silence than a desire to think about things for a bit.

I appreciate your manner very much.

Not to worry, I have not felt dragged into the discussion. I thank you for not taking my silence for anything more than a pause for the sake of contemplation. This whole subject can be difficult to discuss. It can be difficult to convey accurately what one is thinking as well as difficult to accurately grasp what others are trying to convey to you. I do not want to muddle the discussion with confusion when I believe others may be doing a better job making the same or similar point I'm attempting to make. I'm still here reading and thinking.

I still stand on what I am trying to convey... I'm just not sure how best to argue my point more clearly.

Even if we walk away in disagreement...

Not to worry, I have not felt dragged into the discussion. I thank you for not taking my silence for anything more than a pause for the sake of contemplation. This whole subject can be difficult to discuss. It can be difficult to convey accurately what one is thinking as well as difficult to accurately grasp what others are trying to convey to you. I do not want to muddle the discussion with confusion when I believe others may be doing a better job making the same or similar point I'm attempting to make. I'm still here reading and thinking.

I still stand on what I am trying to convey... I'm just not sure how best to argue my point more clearly.

Even if we walk away in disagreement, the discussion is still healthy and desirable.
---------

willhelm
I was more trying to back away with humility than to prompt anyone. I feel I grasp the basic concepts of logic, but I know am not always great at using the principles of logic to argue effectively. I would welcome your comments (+ or -) on what I have been saying. Please correct me in my logic if you find problems. If you agree and can better convey the point please do so. If you don't agree, tell me why.

It was not so much that a prayer was being held but rather that a "Christian" interrupted the prayer being given by a person of a faith NOT of Christianity. These so called Christians want the freedom to pray in government etc. as long as it is only Christian Praying.

It is these kind of problems that arise when religion is interjected into government. Which religion is interjected? When one is allowed to pray, the other fanatical religious people will always be willing to take action to try and stop it based on a mistaken belief they are justified through God to do so. The will first do so with protesting and then next with bombs.

If you don't think it could happen in the US, you ...

It was not so much that a prayer was being held but rather that a "Christian" interrupted the prayer being given by a person of a faith NOT of Christianity. These so called Christians want the freedom to pray in government etc. as long as it is only Christian Praying.

It is these kind of problems that arise when religion is interjected into government. Which religion is interjected? When one is allowed to pray, the other fanatical religious people will always be willing to take action to try and stop it based on a mistaken belief they are justified through God to do so. The will first do so with protesting and then next with bombs.

If you don't think it could happen in the US, you are mistaken. I guarantee that if other religions were allowed suddenly allowed equal footing in the US government, there would be drastic actions take by the ultra conservative Christian groups.

RELIGION HAS NO BUSINESS IN GOVERNMENT! PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!

then next with bombs...there would be drastic actions take by the ultra conservative Christian groups.

You couldn't be further from the truth. The Bible forbids this sort of lunacy, and while you (or others) may scoff at the Bible for various other reasons, you may rest easy knowing that the very source of Christians' belief requires them to seek change through lawful and peacable means (which, by the way, is the very reason I withheld my own approval from their actions, though I may well believe very similarly...I don't know these people, I'm just guessing).

You're not ever going to see a bunch of Presbyterian flying airliners full of civilians into towers full of people w...

then next with bombs...there would be drastic actions take by the ultra conservative Christian groups.

You couldn't be further from the truth. The Bible forbids this sort of lunacy, and while you (or others) may scoff at the Bible for various other reasons, you may rest easy knowing that the very source of Christians' belief requires them to seek change through lawful and peacable means (which, by the way, is the very reason I withheld my own approval from their actions, though I may well believe very similarly...I don't know these people, I'm just guessing).

You're not ever going to see a bunch of Presbyterian flying airliners full of civilians into towers full of people working. You're not going to see a bunch of Baptists with ski masks out at night carving up and smashing vehicles "For the King." No group of Methodists is lining up its stash of Molotov cocktails.

It just ain't gonna happen, and to say so is, at best, alarmist in the utmost, and at worst dishonest.

That is not to say that you would never see a Christian nation--as a nation--defend its borders using all the appropriate means available for waging a just war. Nor does it mean that no criminals are also church members.

But, we're talking about actions in conformity to principles, not actions manifestly anomolous to those principles.

You might, however, see Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists praying in large groups, preaching, singing, walking together (marching), writing letters and speeches, blogging, Clipmarking ( ), handing out literature, talking to friends neighbors and coworkers, and so on.

You may not like that, but to equate it with bombing is a bit of a stretch.

We don't need to bomb. God wins in God's time by God's own means, and His means are not for us to commit murders or other violence.

Religions are not all the same. That is an absurd myth. The object of their worship makes them fundamentally and qualitatively different.

thunderscot
Apparently you know little of the true history of the Christian church.

Yes, in its current situation, most Christians in the western world will not resort to these extreme tactics. I guarantee though, if put in the right situation were Christians feel their religion threatened, Christians would again resort to killing in the name of God. The Christians faith has killed millions through out it's history and given the right situation, will do so again. If you fail to see this, then my friend, you are naive.

Go read some history books!

History shows that, more often then not, men of religion fail to follow the teachings of their religion and instead use religion to gain ...

thunderscot
Apparently you know little of the true history of the Christian church.

Yes, in its current situation, most Christians in the western world will not resort to these extreme tactics. I guarantee though, if put in the right situation were Christians feel their religion threatened, Christians would again resort to killing in the name of God. The Christians faith has killed millions through out it's history and given the right situation, will do so again. If you fail to see this, then my friend, you are naive.

Go read some history books!

History shows that, more often then not, men of religion fail to follow the teachings of their religion and instead use religion to gain power to control others.

A good argument can be made right now that the main reason Israel was given its own state after WW2 was in hope to bring about the secound coming of Christ. A very large majority of Christians believe that one of the things that must take place on earth was the restoration of the state of Israel. There have been millions killed from the direct result of the creation of the State of Israel and the number grows each day.

I say again my friend, you are very naive.

Ahhh...the "true" history of the Christian church. I'm fairly well-read on the subject, but apparently have somehow managed not to read those sources providing the "true" history of the Christian church...millions slaughtered; innocents attacked at night, drug from their homes; mass killings of men women and children. Yes, I know little of this history, because it is a made up history.

It continues to amaze me that when anti-Christians find a Christian who disagrees with them, the anti-Christian automatically assumes it must be because of ignorance or stupidity. Have you considered it could actually be because you're wrong?

I would particularly suggest that it is on this line of discuss...

Ahhh...the "true" history of the Christian church. I'm fairly well-read on the subject, but apparently have somehow managed not to read those sources providing the "true" history of the Christian church...millions slaughtered; innocents attacked at night, drug from their homes; mass killings of men women and children. Yes, I know little of this history, because it is a made up history.

It continues to amaze me that when anti-Christians find a Christian who disagrees with them, the anti-Christian automatically assumes it must be because of ignorance or stupidity. Have you considered it could actually be because you're wrong?

I would particularly suggest that it is on this line of discussion. Your claims of million being killed throughout its history, Christians "again resorting to killing" and so on are positively contrary to the facts.

I'm guessing you will try and excuse your view on the Crusades and the Inquisition, primarily. You may be surprised to learn that the Inquisition resulted in 5000 or fewer deaths (they maintained meticulous records...not exactly the "bomber" mindset), and the though the Crusades resulted in many more, it still wasn't the millions you claim (a recent move has left most of my books packed and in storage, or I'd find precise numbers for you).

Despite an actual death toll, however, both of these "events" are demonstrably different from the sort of "bombing" you assure us is imminent.

Both were conducted at the behest of papal authority, an innovation away from Scripture which has been rejected by Christian history, culminating in the Reformation, which among other things insisted upon a return to biblical practices in the Church.

Therefore, both of these (and I use these, because they are the bloodiest instances of violence by those professing to be Christians), occurred during one of the periods of the Church's greatest corruption...that is, deviation from Christianity's own principles and teachings.

Second, the Crusades, probably the single bloodiest "event" (though it was really a series of many events, not all of them authorized or condoned by church authorities or even most Christians at the time), at least had some arguable impetus in defending other Christians who were undergoing persecution themselves, and to prevent further Muslim conquest. That is not to suggest that they are therefore excused, but it is to show that the motive, on the whole, was not the same as the bombers you say we are.

Furthermore, both of these bloody blights on our history were done in the context of legal adjudication or concerted military action. In the Inquisition, there was a legal process followed....

Second, the Crusades, probably the single bloodiest "event" (though it was really a series of many events, not all of them authorized or condoned by church authorities or even most Christians at the time), at least had some arguable impetus in defending other Christians who were undergoing persecution themselves, and to prevent further Muslim conquest. That is not to suggest that they are therefore excused, but it is to show that the motive, on the whole, was not the same as the bombers you say we are.

Furthermore, both of these bloody blights on our history were done in the context of legal adjudication or concerted military action. In the Inquisition, there was a legal process followed...perhaps a sham, but it was there nonetheless, and evidence was received and some loose form of cross examination permitted. Again, that doesn't excuse it, but does show that it is of a fundamentally different nature than what you say I am naive to think will never happen.

Similarly, the Crusades were organized military responses by recognized civil and church leaders. Not surreptitious conniving to just see how many people could be blown up.

Go read some history books!

You have no idea... Before you admonish me, I strongly suggest you follow your own advice.

more often then not, men of religion fail to follow the teachings of their religion

I don't defend "men of religion," so you're not arguing with me when you write that.

However, Christianity in its role as a worldview and an ethical system has only a very limited role for violence, and that limited role is defensive, and subject to many other restraints.

There have been historic deviations, but the two most notable came during a period when the church generally had strayed the furthest from her ethical (and otherwise) principles. Taken as a whole, the history of the Christian church is anything but bloody.

The old testament if full of the self professed "Gods people" killing on grand scales.

The 1500 to 1700 years of the Church, solely existing as the Catholic Church, killed great numbers of people in it's inquisitions, crusades and wars. Lets not forget the millions killed for failure to convert during the hundreds of years when the new worlds were being taken over.

The IRA... and so on, and so on, and so on, and that's just the Christian religion.

----------
Israel was NOT created just so the Jew would have their own place to call home. Israel was created with the belief that returning Israel to the Holy land had to happen before the second coming of Christ could take place. If i...

The old testament if full of the self professed "Gods people" killing on grand scales.

The 1500 to 1700 years of the Church, solely existing as the Catholic Church, killed great numbers of people in it's inquisitions, crusades and wars. Lets not forget the millions killed for failure to convert during the hundreds of years when the new worlds were being taken over.

The IRA... and so on, and so on, and so on, and that's just the Christian religion.

----------
Israel was NOT created just so the Jew would have their own place to call home. Israel was created with the belief that returning Israel to the Holy land had to happen before the second coming of Christ could take place. If it were a just a matter of finding a place for them to call home, there where many other places that could have been given to them that would not have caused the kind of problems it has. During the WW2 there ships of Jews who could not find single country willing to take them in including the USA. They were sent back to Germany. All these countries did at that time have full knowledge of the concentration camps. To think the world created Israel out of concern for the well being does not follow. It was created for the sole reason of wanting to bring about the second coming of Christ and millions have been killed because of this religious belief.

Take off the rose colored sun classes and see things as the really are. I beg you to research this out. I'm not making this crap up. It is a matter of history.