Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have the same problem; there are so many concepts of god, I don't know what you are talking about.
I already described the one I am referring to. The triune Christian god.
Your belief that god has revealed his behavior does not mean that the bible can be used to observe the behavior of god.
I never claimed I observed anything at all. Or that the bible has observations written in it. Only that I believe the bible to be divine revelation.
For I could believe that Santa has revealed his behavior, but that would not make it true.
I never claimed that merely making the supposition makes it true.
Originally posted by Ytse
I already described the one I am referring to. The triune Christian god.I never claimed I observed anything at all. Or that the bible has observations written in it. Only that I believe the bible to be divine revelation.
I never claimed that merely making the supposition makes it true.
Then we should have no problem because you have no point.
No, I'm not. As I said, induction relies on at least some observations. If you count reading scripture as observing god's character then that presupposes that there is a god to have any character in the first place. Otherwise it's describing a fiction which is something that is invented, not observed.
You are saying that you cannot observe a fictional character, but then you say you can observe the character of god.
You cannot have it both ways.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then we should have no problem because you have no point.
Have you bothered to look at the name of this thread? I am agreeing with that.
You are saying that you cannot observe a fictional character,
Correct.
but then you say you can observe the character of god.
No, actually I said the exact opposite. I said I cannot observe god's character. And I said the scriptures aren't observations themselves, but revelation.
Originally posted by Ytse
Which isn't in the set of Christian suppositions. You can't simply claim it's a valid description of god's character.
The statement, "Even a liar tells the truth sometimes," does not address the characteristics of God as described in The Bible, it addresses why a valid induction cannot be made about behavior.
Originally posted by Ytse
No, I'm not. As I said, induction relies on at least some observations. If you count reading scripture as observing god's character then that presupposes that there is a god to have any character in the first place. Otherwise it's describing a fiction which is something that is invented, not observed.
Induction is a mode of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are assumed to support the conclusion in order to determine properties or relationships of types. A type need not be existent in order to induce its characteristics, e.g. one can induce the characteristics of Tom Sawyer from his description in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, even though both Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are fictional.
Originally posted by Devil King
No, it's delusional.
That's quite a generalization. Don't have anything worthwhile to say?
----------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The statement, "Even a liar tells the truth sometimes," does not address the characteristics of God as described in The Bible, it addresses why a valid induction cannot be made about behavior
I am not making any claims based on inductive logic. I've said this repeatedly.
A type need not be existent in order to induce its characteristics, e.g. one can induce the characteristics of Tom Sawyer from his description in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, even though both Tom Sawyer and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are fictional.
This isn't a description by a narrator. This is a direct revelation from god. We do not need to use induction to determine what the nature of god is really like because he simply tells us. As I said, induction relies upon observations to begin with. Divine revelation does not.
Originally posted by Ytse
That's quite a generalization. Don't have anything worthwhile to say?
I think it is worthwhile.
Originally posted by Ytse
I am not making any claims based on inductive logic. I've said this repeatedly.
See below.
Originally posted by Ytse
This isn't a description by a narrator. This is a direct revelation from god. We do not need to use induction to determine what the nature of god is really like because he simply tells us. As I said, induction relies upon observations to begin with. Divine revelation does not.
God did not personally reveal His characteristics to you—you induced His characteristics from The Bible.
Moreover, induction only presumes that the premises of an argument support the conclusion; it does not follow from this that the premises must rely on direct observations.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I think it is worthwhile.
To generalize that some 2 billion people are delusional? It usually takes examination by a psychologist or doctor to determine that.
God did not personally reveal His characteristics to you—you induced His characteristics from The Bible.
No, not directly to me. The presupposition is that scripture is a direct revelation to mankind. And no, I am not inducing his characteristics from the bible. There is no need for induction. God says this is how I am, I do not change. There is no observation on my part. Only revelation on god's part.
Moreover, induction only presumes that the premises of an argument support the conclusion; it does not follow from this that the premises must rely on direct observations.
But the very issue at hand is whether god exists or not. What is the basis for this induction as to how god might behave? The bible? As I said, if you assume the bible is a reliable source for the characteristics of god then it presupposes a god exists. But as I said, the existence of god is the very issue at hand.
Originally posted by Ytse
Have you bothered to look at the name of this thread? I am agreeing with that.Correct.
No, actually I said the exact opposite. I said I cannot observe god's character. And I said the scriptures aren't observations themselves, but revelation.
You really quibble over words, don’t you. It doesn’t really matter if it’s “observe” or “revelation”. What you are trying to say, or not say, is that the bible is beyond the scope of scrutiny. This is no different then the green dragon egg, that I mentioned before. Just because you believe something, does not make it true. You are living a delusion, that you are unwilling to forgo. As long as you are happy and don’t hurt people, that is fine with me.
Science cannot make you believe anything. Belief is in the heart, and the true reason for science is to quench that heart. We live in a wondrous universe, that for some reason, beyond my understanding, has decided to grow a mind that can ask the question, what are we? You have found an old way to find that answer, and I am happy for you, but the belief in gods is a time that will one day pass. If the human raise survives this childhood we now live, we will truly understand the very nature of God.
Originally posted by Ytse
To generalize that some 2 billion people are delusional? It usually takes examination by a psychologist or doctor to determine that.
"Donkeys can talk, people can fly, and a man named Jesus lives up in the sky," is a delusion.
Originally posted by Ytse
No, not directly to me. The presupposition is that scripture is a direct revelation to mankind. And no, I am not inducing his characteristics from the bible. There is no need for induction. God says this is how I am, I do not change. There is no observation on my part. Only revelation on god's part.
[list=1][*]If God did not personally reveal His characteristics to you, then you are inducing His characteristics from The Bible.
[*]Direct observation is not necessary for induction.
[*]The basis for the presupposition that The Bible "is a direct revelation to mankind" is The Bible. This is circular reasoning, and it commits the logic fallacy of Begging the Question.[/list]
Originally posted by Ytse
But the very issue at hand is whether god exists or not. What is the basis for this induction as to how god might behave? The bible? As I said, if you assume the bible is a reliable source for the characteristics of god then it presupposes a god exists. But as I said, the existence of god is the very issue at hand.
Presuming the characterization of God as described in The Bible to be true for the purposes of an argument does not equate to believing the characterization of God as described in The Bible to be true.
For this argument, the characterization of God as described in The Bible is presumed to be true to determine whether or not such a being could feasibly exist.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If God did not personally reveal His characteristics to you, then you are inducing His characteristics from The Bible.
No, I am not inducing any characteristics. There is 0 induction involved. You keep making the claim but not backing it up. Write a syllogism or something.
Direct observation is not necessary for induction.
Some sort of observation is required. I'm saying none is involved here.
The basis for the presupposition that The Bible "is a direct revelation to mankind" is The Bible. This is circular reasoning, and it commits the logic fallacy of Begging the Question.
All worldviews ultimately make certain unproveable fundamental assumptions. I've been claiming from the beginning that mine rely on faith.
Presuming the characterization of God as described in The Bible to be true for the purposes of an argument does not equate to believing the characterization of God as described in The Bible to be true.
I know. But as you said in the next paragraph you assume it to be true for the purposes of argument. But what you're doing is adding a bunch of extraneous crap. You're ignoring when I say this is divine revelation and instead asserting that no, these are observations from which I must "induce" god's future behavior. Well, god transcends time. He is immutable. And if you'd read the scriptures at all you'd realize that.
Originally posted by Ytse
No, I am not inducing any characteristics. There is 0 induction involved. You keep making the claim but not backing it up. Write a syllogism or something.
Since The Bible is the basis for the presupposition that The Bible is "a direct revelation to mankind," it is not a sound presupposition. Therefore, if God did not personally reveal His characteristics to you, then you are inducing His characteristics from The Bible.
Originally posted by Ytse
Some sort of observation is required. I'm saying none is involved here.
The only thing that is necessary for induction is the presumption that the premises support the conclusion.
Originally posted by Ytse
All worldviews ultimately make certain unproveable fundamental assumptions. I've been claiming from the beginning that mine rely on faith.
False.
Originally posted by Ytse
I know. But as you said in the next paragraph you assume it to be true for the purposes of argument. But what you're doing is adding a bunch of extraneous crap. You're ignoring when I say this is divine revelation and instead asserting that no, these are observations from which I must "induce" god's future behavior. Well, god transcends time. He is immutable. And if you'd read the scriptures at all you'd realize that.
See the above.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Since The Bible is the basis for the presupposition that The Bible is "a direct revelation to mankind," it is not a sound presupposition. Therefore, if God did not personally reveal His characteristics to you, then you are inducing His characteristics from The Bible.
Scripture is not effectual for salvation (and thus, faith) unto itself (otherwise we wouldn't have had Christians before the bible was compiled). God personally redeems those of his choosing. So, faith in God presupposes the truth of the scriptures (because you cannot have knowledge of something without believing it to be true).
The only thing that is necessary for induction is the presumption that the premises support the conclusion.
And what exactly is your premise? This is why I requested a syllogism.