Well it's obviously not as bad as it was, thankfully. But yes, it is still around and still does have a strong presence.
I mean, look at most Muslim countries and their crazy, insane laws dictated by religion.
Look at the US, where I think it's like 40 or 50% of them believe that the world was created by a God, that Adam and Eve were in fact the first humans, that the world is around 6000 years old! Creationism is taught in some schools! Insane!
People STILL killing people in the name of their "God", it's a joke. People being censored because of other peoples religions should not happen, yet it still does.
Originally posted by Ytse
How can it be limited by induction when it's not even using induction at all? Prove your point because I'm still saying you don't quite grasp inductive logic.The problem of induction is just that...the problem of induction. Not the problem of any kind of reasoning you want to say it is.
From an outside observer who doesnt have faith in your truths, he will use all manner of logical tools to gauge your beliefs. I just happened to use to the problem of induction because after all it was you who claimed that God has not shown himself to be fickle when i brought up the possibility that God might change the words of the Bible. . . . well isnt that an inductive argument?
Well the problem of induction states that the past is not a reliable guide to the future. God's benevolent behavior in the past, doesnt guarantee that he will remain benevolent in the future. God may not have transformed the Bible into a Playboy mag in the past but how can we be sure that he wont do it in the future?
Originally posted by Templares
I just happened to use to the problem of induction because after all it was you who claimed that God has not shown himself to be fickle when i brought up the possibility that God might change the words of the Bible. . . . well isnt that an inductive argument?
An inductive argument would be if I said:
I've always observed god to tell the truth in the past therefore he will continue to tell the truth in the future.
But what I am saying is this:
God says he tells the truth. Therefore god is telling the truth.
Originally posted by Ytse
An inductive argument would be if I said:I've always observed god to tell the truth in the past therefore he will continue to tell the truth in the future.
But what I am saying is this:
God says he tells the truth. Therefore god is telling the truth.
Ah but this itself is susceptible to the problem of induction. He may be telling the truth and/or promised to tell the truth but who's to say he going to ALWAYS tell the truth and/or keep his promise in the future?
Originally posted by Templares
He may be telling the truth and/or promised to tell the truth but who's to say he going to ALWAYS tell the truth and/or keep his promise in the future?
God is to say. And he did say.
As I said before, the core Christian presupposition is the truth of scripture. This myterious trickster god you're conjuring up is nothing like the god revealed in scripture. Therefore it isn't relevant.
Originally posted by Ytse
God is to say. And he did say.As I said before, the core Christian presupposition is the truth of scripture. This myterious trickster god you're conjuring up is nothing like the god revealed in scripture. Therefore it isn't relevant.
The core Christian belief being "the truth of god" is something that has been made up in the last century by reactionay sects of Christianity.
And you logic fails...there are a million ways around what you are saying.
Originally posted by Alliance
The core Christian belief being "the truth of god" is something that has been made up in the last century by reactionay sects of Christianity.
No. Every other belief must follow from that presupposition.
And you logic fails...there are a million ways around what you are saying.
Prove it.
Originally posted by Alliance
No, because there are Christian beleifs that can contradict the bible.
There are no Christian beliefs at all without the bible.
God would get benefits from portraying himself in one way. He doesn't have to be honest.
You're claiming to have extra-biblical knowledge of god's character?
Originally posted by Ytse
God is to say. And he did say.As I said before, the core Christian presupposition is the truth of scripture. This myterious trickster god you're conjuring up is nothing like the god revealed in scripture. Therefore it isn't relevant.
Well is that it? God is to say? Blind faith pure and simple.
God claims to be benevolent and so far he kept his word but whose to say he wont turn trickster in the future and change the contents of the Bible where it is written and undermine the claim that he's one benevolent mofo.
Originally posted by Templares
Well is that it? God is to say? Blind faith pure and simple.
I've never claimed it was ultimately reliant on anything other than faith.
God claims to be benevolent and so far he kept his word but whose to say he wont turn trickster in the future and change the contents of the Bible where it is written and undermine the claim that he's one benevolent mofo.
Who is to say? I just answered this...
Oh but i've seen God turn his back on his chosen people and instigate mass genocide. He's a genuine dick. Thats what i've read on the Old Testament. I bet the benevolent image that he projects in the New Testament is one of his flimsy tricks. He changed the words of the earlier New Testament, which contains gratuitous blood and gore, into boring the New testament that we have now.
Anyway, the Bible is way overdue for a rewrite. Somebody call God's agent.
Originally posted by Templares
Oh but i've seen God turn his back on his chosen people and instigate mass genocide. He's a genuine dick. Thats what i've read on the Old Testament. I bet the benevolent image that he projects in the New Testament is one of his flimsy tricks. He changed the words of the earlier New Testament, which contains gratuitous blood and gore, into boring the New testament that we have now.
1) You're going to try and use your hasty analysis of the meta-narrative of the bible against me now? What happened to your speculative trickster god? Maybe he just fooled you into reading what you think you have read.
2) Why're you addressing hermeneutics when your position is that the bible doesn't tell us anything about god at all?
Originally posted by Ytse
1) You're going to try and use your hasty analysis of the meta-narrative of the bible against me now? What happened to your speculative trickster god? Maybe he just fooled you into reading what you think you have read.2) Why're you addressing hermeneutics when your position is that the bible doesn't tell us anything about god at all?
There is a reason why i didnt quote your post on my previous reply and its because it was in response to what Alliance said earlier.
Going back to you.
Your blind faith will not erase the logical possibility within the context of the problem of induction that your God's benevolent behavior will remain unchanged in the future.