The Number 1

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I also have to wonder whether or not God is an active agent. It seems likely that God is not active.

This is an interesting statement. Can you elaborate? How can God not be an active agent?

Originally posted by whodey
Anything is better that accepting something on simple faith. Is'nt that right?

I wasn't really trying to say that. I am talking about philosophy. If one is interested in philosophy, then apologetics is a cheap trick. Apologists have no interest in truth. They have an agenda to push*. If logic lines up with that agenda, then all the better. If not, then they'll use the best fallacy they can come up with.

If you are satisfied with "X is so because the Bible says so," then read all the apologists you want. They'll make you feel good even if what their peddling are half-truths and question-beggings. If you would like to see you faith validated by logic (e.g. "X is so because of this and this and this good reason. The Bible also says that X is so. Now isn't that cool?" ) then apologetics will be a big disappointment.

* - An apologist would likely find the term "agenda" pejorative. Perhaps they would say that they already have the truth. The apologetics is just to convince other people that they do.

P.S. - Apologetics is a big market for evangelical Christianity right now, but apologetics need not be limited to this particular religion or even the subject of religion. Political parties have apologists for example; we just commonly refer to those apologists as "hacks."

Originally posted by telerion
I wasn't really trying to say that. I am talking about philosophy. If one is interested in philosophy, then apologetics is a cheap trick. Apologists have no interest in truth. They have an agenda to push*. If logic lines up with that agenda, then all the better. If not, then they'll use the best fallacy they can come up with.

If you are satisfied w ...[text shortened]... have apologists for example; we just commonly refer to those apologists as "hacks."

Are you saying that Adam and Eve fell because they had PhD's in philosophy?

Originally posted by whodey
Are you saying that Adam and Eve fell because they had PhD's in philosophy?

I'm sorry; it's late here, and I'm missing your point right now.

Originally posted by whodey
This is an interesting statement. Can you elaborate? How can God not be an active agent?

If there is a God, he must be active. It's part of his perfect nature, to always be active.

(Just because he rested on the 7th day, doesn't mean he's resting for the rest of eternity.)

The air you breathe? He filled your lungs with it.

The babies being born everyday? God formed everyone of them.
(Psalm 139)

Every day that everyone has ever lived is a miracle from God.

God has been working continuously for however long the Earth existed.

Originally posted by whodey
Are you saying that Adam and Eve fell because they had PhD's in philosophy?

Adam and Eve fell because God is mean.

Originally posted by EinsteinMind
I think God...

is beyond space and time and yet still works through time.

I agree with telerion that it would be better for you to just state your argument in full: define terms clearly (including, of course, 'God'😉 and then just present all the premises needed to support your conclusion that God exists.

I have to say, though, that I'm already skeptical since your concept of 'God' seems clearly self-contradictory, or maybe just plain nonsense, for starters. I don't know what is meant by "beyond space". And it is contradictory to say that some thing is simultaneously outside time and yet also active in time. Based on a reductionist view of time, this entails that the thing is both changeless and not changeless, which is logically impossible. Likewise, it is incoherent to state that some thing could undergo events whereby it somehow transitions into and out of time because events, or changes, happen only wholly in time. [The next thread I plan on starting in this forum when I have some time is on the Problem of Action, where I hope to argue these points in more depth, along with discussion of Platonism vs. reductionism with respect to time.]

Originally posted by EinsteinMind
Over my dead arse. Look at what I said above! A purley ontological argument is already defeated because it at least has one fallacy within it.

One cannot base a full argument on ontology. There are too many assumptions.

Out of interest, which fallacy? Are you talking about the Kantian criticism that existence is not a predicate?

Originally posted by EinsteinMind
If there is a God, he must be active.

Well, then, it cannot also be the case that God exists "beyond time". Things that exist independently of temporal relations cannot be causally active.

Originally posted by telerion
I'm sorry; it's late here, and I'm missing your point right now.

My point is that you are implying that those who use apologetics have no interest in the truth, rather, they simply have an agenda to push due to their faith that is unprovable. Conversly, philosophers are only interested in the truth and walk where truth may lead them, wherever that may be because they rely on logic rather than faith. Therefore, I asked if perhaps Adam and Eve had PhD's in philosophy because they lost faith in their God in favor of their own logic? Get it? Ok, perhaps it is not as funny as I thought it was at first.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Adam and Eve fell because God is mean.

If he really is mean should you be going around trying to tick him off by saying he is mean? Think man!!! If he really is real it seems to me that he is very, very, very long-suffering and merciful. That is, if he exists. Then again, we hav'nt heard from Shav in a while have we? I tried to warn him!! 😛

Originally posted by whodey
My point is that you are implying that those who use apologetics have no interest in the truth, rather, they simply have an agenda to push due to their faith that is unprovable. Conversly, philosophers are only interested in the truth and walk where truth may lead them, wherever that may be because they rely on logic rather than faith. Therefore, I asked if ...[text shortened]... d Eve had PhD's in philosophy because they lost faith in their God in favor of their own logic?

Unless my Christian education fails me, you are being very liberal with the story.

Eve is tricked by the serpent. She eats in hopes of becoming "like God" by gaining the knowledge of good and evil. Adam also ate the fruit for reasons which are not clearly stated.

I don't see how you jump from that to Adam and Eve fell because they wanted logic. It seems that they rather were tempted by glory and the the beauty of the fruit of the tree.

Moreover no where does it say that they lost their faith in God. They disobeyed him to be sure, but they still believed in him. How could those two deny the existence of God?

Anyway, I have yet to see how this fable has anything to do with my genuine encouragement for EM to set aside Evangelical apologetics for more rewarding material. Are you using the Garden Myth as an analogy to philopophy vs. apologetics? Are the writings of Norm Geisler and his companions supposed to be the Words of God and the writings of so many philosophers to be the Tree*?

I just don't see a lot of connection here.

Edit: * - I suppose that I am the serpent?

Originally posted by whodey
If he really is mean should you be going around trying to tick him off by saying he is mean? Think man!!! If he really is real it seems to me that he is very, very, very long-suffering and merciful. That is, if he exists. Then again, we hav'nt heard from Shav in a while have we? I tried to warn him!! 😛

Sauron is mean too, and I have no fear of saying so.

Originally posted by telerion
.

Moreover no where does it say that they lost their faith in God. They disobeyed him to be sure, but they still believed in him. How could those two deny the existence of God?

But is not disobeying God loosing their faith in him on some level? Granted, they believed he existed but does that mean they could still not loose their faith in him? You conceede that they disobeyed God yet you seem to indicate that they did not really loose faith in him. How can this be? For example, perhaps you believe that George Bush is real but perhaps you have lost faith in him despite this. If he gets up and says that he has won the Iraqi war do you believe him?

Anyhew, I was only bringing to light that the pursuit of truth can take the form of many paths. However, your beliefs are what shape your interpretations and conclusions of data in the end. Therefore, it matters little if philosophy or apologetics is the route in which you explore such truths.

Originally posted by telerion
Sauron is mean too, and I have no fear of saying so.

If it were not for nice guys like you and I where would we be?