Another Question For Christians - Page 19

NotReady · #**181** 05-09-2005, 04:40 PM

Socrates was being disingenous. All through the dialogs he makes unprovable assumption after unprovable assumpiton. The statement you cite is self-contradictory. If he knows nothing, he can't know he knows nothing.

Aytumious · #**182** 05-09-2005, 04:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Socrates was being disingenous. All through the dialogs he makes unprovable assumption after unprovable assumpiton. The statement you cite is self-contradictory. If he knows nothing, he can't know he knows nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but I think the point is to advance from a position of admitted ignorance on nearly everything in regards to our existence as opposed to taking a leap of faith and logic into a belief in god, which will fill in blanks that perhaps should not be filled.

NotReady · #**183** 05-09-2005, 04:58 PM

Christianity is more logical than atheism. It's illogical to believe that order comes from chaos, meaning from non-meaning, morality from a random dance of atoms. Christianity explains reality better than atheism. Faith is required for any worldview. Judgment is then brought to bear to determine the internal coherence of the system, and how well it explains what we think we know about reality.

Aytumious · #**184** 05-09-2005, 05:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is more logical than atheism. It's illogical to believe that order comes from chaos, meaning from non-meaning, morality from a random dance of atoms. Christianity explains reality better than atheism. Faith is required for any worldview. Judgment is then brought to bear to determine the internal coherence of the system, and how well it explains what we think we know about reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that man places certain constructs on reality -- space, time, causality -- in order to make sense of that reality and live within it. In that regard, I think human understanding is remarkably limited and that we cannot know anything beyond our own construct. If you consider my position to be creating order from chaos, that's fine, but I don't think it's illogical.

As earlier in this thread, I don't know what you mean by creating meaning from non-meaning. In essence I am a nihilist in regard to all of existence simply because I don't believe man, with his limited capabilities, can understand the meaning of it all. However, I am with Nietzsche in believing that man creates meaning in his own life through his actions, and quite frankly, I find it repugnant to think that anything outside myself gives my life value.

On a similar note, I do not believe in any type of universal moral code mandated by god. Morality to me is very relative. In order for humanity to function, a system of morals needs to exist. In essence, morality is an agreed upon code of conduct within a society, which, for the most part, is beneficial for the whole.

NotReady · #**185** 05-09-2005, 05:23 PM

I don't think I need to point out all the unprovable assumptions you just made.

gasgod · #**186** 05-09-2005, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I need to point out all the unprovable assumptions you just made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the dismissive one liner, last refuge of the party that has run out of good arguments.

Aytumious wins this exchange by TKO. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

GG

NotReady · #**187** 05-09-2005, 05:34 PM

If you paid attention to the thread you would have realized it's a very good argument as it points out the self-contradiction of his attack on Christianity.

I want a new referee.

Aytumious · #**188** 05-09-2005, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I need to point out all the unprovable assumptions you just made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, although I would urge you to consider what I wrote without presupposing the existence of god, especially in regard to morality and meaning. The metaphysics are basically straight out of the writings of Kant and Schopenhauer.

It is clear to me we will not get any further with this discussion, although I do thank you because I had lost interest in philosophical debate since graduating from college, and I now feel the urge to break out some of the books I had been meaning to read.

Aytumious · #**189** 05-09-2005, 05:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you paid attention to the thread you would have realized it's a very good argument as it points out the self-contradiction of his attack on Christianity.

I want a new referee.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually a good point. My attack earlier was a clumsy one, since I cannot argue without making certain unprovable assumptions. My point in the original comment was more about a degree of plausibility and the pitfalls of assuming something as all encompassing as the christian god, although it certainly does not come off that way.

NotReady · #**190** 05-09-2005, 05:59 PM

You're welcome and I hope you do continue to investigate your position.

Most of my "apologetic" comes from a theologian who was well versed in idealsim and neo-Kantianism. His name was Cornelius Van Til, and if you're interested I would recommend the book on him by John Frame, An Analysis of His Thought. Bahnsen's book on Van Til is also very good. I don't agree with Van Til completely, and neither does Frame, but it's plausible that Van Til was the greatest theologian of the 20th century. Bahnsen does mostly agree with him, but he made a brilliant presentation of the most important aspects of Van Til. Van Til is certainly worth reading to get the "opposing" view.