lumberjack4
My Facts > Your Facts
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,726
- Likes
- 4
You cannot get from reason to belief in the Christian god; this has been accepted and expounded upon by a great majority of Christian theologians. You get to that belief by having 'privileged access' to the 'revelation' as given through the authoritative text.
Take up your issue of the use of the word 'privilege' with the Vatican, Luther, Kierkegaard, More, etc.
True. But you can get from reason to a belief in a divine creator. From there, it does take revelation to accept that the divine creator is the God of the Bible.
You can use reason to get to the following:
1. At least one supernatural, creative force existed at one time.
2. The antinomy of an all-perfect God and the existence of evil which springs from an innate concept of 'quality'. Do we have an innate concept of 'quality' though? Can any such truth produce an absolute contradiction? (Of course, this is what the entire Christian story rests upon: the absolute negation of the absolute).
3. If you follow Berkeley's idealism, you can get to a God that is all-perceiving and all-present; yet, there is still not an argument there to convince that such a God is all-powerful, all-knowing, creative, etc. And, Berkeley's argument and philosophic leaves no room for the arguments above.
That is the limit of reason. Anything beyond, is merely subjective speculation.
I'm sure that's exactly how it goes down.
At the end of the day they keep trying to preach god, "because the bible says so". I've already established the fact that I don't hold the bible above all other books like they do. To me, they'd be just as productive preaching god from the Curious George books. When they finally realize, "because the bible says so" isn't a good enough reason, they go full retard. I don't pretend to understand why. They all react differently. But most of my experiences end with I haven't accepted god because I hate him to varying degrees, which is absurd. I actually behave myself, even though they are infringing upon my time.
I don't know if you're still a mormon, but I'll say this. As a group they are some of the nicest people I've ever met.
I don't consider that spreading hate. All I wanted to know is who said it was. I'm not trying to play gotcha either.
Not at all.
If the laws of thermodynamics are true, then there had to be an initial actor that isnt'/wasn't bound by those laws. Thus, if those laws govern all natural actions and reactions, and the initial actor isn't/wasn't bound by them, by definition that actor is "supernatural".
What is a "non Christian believer"?
I have provided my views on divinity plenty. Feel free to search my posts; keywords: deity, agnostic, and supernatural.