Tom Caylor wrote:
>
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Tom Caylor wrote:
>> >
>> > I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy. If there is
>> > something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted
>> > me to address, just bring it back up.
>> >
>> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> >> Le 26-d c.-06, 19:54, Tom Caylor a crit :
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>> >> >> Le 25-d c.-06, 01:13, Tom Caylor a crit :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The "crux" is that he is not symbolic...
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I respect your belief or faith, but I want to be frank, I have no
>> >> >> evidences for the idea that "Jesus" is "truth", nor can I be
>> sure of
>> >> >> any clear meaning such an assertion could have, or how such an
>> >> >> assertion could be made scientific, even dropping Popper
>> falsification
>> >> >> criteria. I must say I have evidences on the contrary, if only the
>> >> >> fact
>> >> >> that humans succumb often to wishful thinking, and still more
>> often to
>> >> >> their parents wishful thinking.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > If you are not sure of any clear meaning of the personal God
>> being the
>> >> > source of everything, including of course truth, this entails not
>> >> > knowing the other things too.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Is that not an authoritative argument?
>> >> What if I ask to my student an exam question like give me an argument
>> >> why the square root of 3 is irrationnal. Suppose he gives me the
>> >> correct and convincing usual (mathematical) proof. I could give him a
>> >> bad note for not adding: "and I know that is the truth because
>> truth is
>> >> a gift by God".
>> >> Cute, I can directly give bad notes to all my students, and this will
>> >> give me more time to find a falsity in your way to reason ...
>> >>
>> >
>> > Just to clear this up, my above statement was not meant to be an
>> > argument. I purposefully used the word "entail" rather than "imply". I
>> > wasn't saying that you cannot believe in some kind of truth without
>> > believing in the personal God. However is makes sense *from my
>> > perspective* (of belief in the personal God) that you do not have a
>> > basis for any truth on which personhood can be based, which *from my
>> > perspective* (which I *have* been arguing for in general) needs more
>> > than the impersonal core.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The card records facts. To judge them historical is already beyond my
>> >> competence. Why the bible? Why not "the question of king Milinda" ?
>> >>
>> >
>> > My approach on the Everything List has been to argue for the necessity
>> > of the personal God as the ultimate basis for Everything. If someone
>> > wants to research the historical record sufficiently to convince
>> > themselves one way or another about the Bible or Jesus' resurrection,
>> > that's great, and I can give them some sources, but it's probably too
>> > contingent for this List. But I do have response to your comment on
>> > universal-ness below.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > My whole argument is that without it our hope eventually runs out
>> and
>> >> > we are left with despair,
>>
>> Speak for yourself.
>>
>
> My above statement is in the context of an a long explanation I've put
> forth in previous posts regarding the conclusions of modern philosophy.
> I explain below that I am referring to nihilism when I use the word
> "despair". This is not my own fabrication, but comes from the wording
> used by the modern existentialist philosophers.
>
>>
>> >> unless we lie to ourselves against the
>> >> > absence of hope.
>>
>> So are you lying to yourself because otherwise you would despair?
>>
>
> Again, this is in the context of what I've said before about
> reductionism and existentialism. The "lie" refers to having to act "as
> if" (originated with Kant) certain things like free will are real even
> though we "know" they are not, in order to avoid nihilism. Again, some
> examples are of people who maintain a view along these lines are Marvin
> Minsky (Society of Mind), Steven Pinker (How The Mind Works), Dennett
> (who holds that language about purpose, intention, feelings does not
> belong to science, but is indispensable to ordinary discourse), and
> even eliminative materialists (Searle; Daniel Wegner's "The Illusion of
> Conscious Will") concede that a concept of self remains a convenient
> fiction that in practice we can't do without. These examples were
> given in Nancy Pearcey's book Total Truth, although I don't agree with
> everything she says.
But none of those people are nihilists. They just deny that there are values independent of individual's values. And Dennett has defended a compatibilist free will in at least two books.
>
> Tom
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Here Stathis already give a genuine comment. You are just admitting
>> >> your argument is "wishful thinking".
>> >>
>> >
>> > I was being too poetic ;) By "despair" I meant nihilism, the belief
>> > that there ultimately is no meaning.
But your argument still is an appeal to wishful thinking.
>>I am arguing that the ultimate
>> > source of meaning has to be personal. I'm just saything that my
>> > argument is of the form, "If meaning is not ultimately based on the
>> > personal God, then there is no true meaning, because..."
>>
>> If meaning is personal, and I'm a person, then I create meaning. To
>> postulate a personal God to supply "ultimate" personal meaning seems
>> otiose. It's like the first-cause argument for God. If God can exist
>> uncaused then why not stop the regress with an uncaused universe -
>> which has the additional advantage of obviously existing.
>>
>> Brent Meeker
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Dec 30 2006 - 18:54:47 PST