Moonbeam pokes EngineNr9 with a hairy nuckle.
linuxboy eats banana.
You, sir, rock. 😀... Even if I reject your notion that something can be true without being consistent... I really do hope that was a joke, playing off my question.
I am not a rock, even though I have been accused of living under one.
Maybe... something can be true without consitency, that's the point. We have to accept reality as it is, and this is what Engine has talked about and why I like bananas so much. But to accept reality as it comes, on its terms is to submit to God, admitting that all the wisdom of this world amount to very little, if anything. Reality is a something, but it is not a formal system. Christianity is not a formal system, but a way, a pointer to God, showing what can be had for the taking, what is means to become like children. You're juggling the two notions together. A formal system is open to circularity, and any speech is as well. There is a wealth outside of that, a richness found in the ocean.
It is only a sufficient condition, not a necessary one. Unsettling thought, eh? If you want to use it, that's great, that is a very affirming solution, but certainly not the only one possible. Again, levels.
I believe it to be primary, with other criteria being secondary, tertiary, etc., so I think we agree on the idea of "levels." Probably the most basic question is the question of existence, identity, etc., and I think the only way to determine that I even exist is by the ideas presented. I guess my objection would be that you're describing things in terms of levels... isn't it possible for there to be a top level? Is there something that will even be placed -- metaphorically -- on an equal playing field with undeniability/unaffirmability?
For whom? Our own views are limited by imposed logic. To get to that point, outside of the bounds of circularity is a leap, and that is a top level because it is outside and inside. Encompassing and surrounded.
I'm looking for other options. I'm not flat-out stating that Geisler's system is the only one that makes any rational sense. If you have another place to start, let me know. Perhaps we could define this as the law whereby "formal systems" can be verified. But I'm willing to listen to other possible options. Geisler indicates that this is the only valid method of evaluating worldviews. You state that it's a sufficient condition, but not necessary. Well... any examples? I still think that a view must be both internally and externally consistent in order to be valid.
Logically valid? External consistency still required the invokation of something. This something is a concept and is thus enclosed in a larger system until you get to the philosopher's Unmoved Mover where the progression and sequence stops.
My point is that you can have this, and strive for logical perfection but it is secondary to a view perceived when one is inwardly undivided.
But it is the law. And the law has been replaced with grace.
Wow. Do you think this means that all laws have been replaced with grace?
What do you define laws to be? Perceived laws, inferential rules, Hebrew tradition? It's a complex passage.
Do you think the completeness of the law in Christ means that laws of reason no longer apply?
Apply how? Yes and no, depending on what you mean. Replacement is inclusive, not exclusive. It retains and completes.
What exactly was the weakness of the law... Romans 8:x (like 2, I think)-- "what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." I'm thinking this is strictly on a moral level and is dealing more with sin issues rather than reason.
That one deals with "flesh" and its temptations. Which is a part of this issue. Not exclusive to a single ethical exegesis.
But don't let it go to your head because you're also a Christian bigot who thinks he knows the truth.
...and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free... this does not set me free to be a Christian bigot. True Christians are motivated not by bigotry, but by love. Granted, there are certain aspects of Christianity beyond reason, but I would argue that the ideas presented are still consistent with reason, even though they transcend the scope of reason. By defining my position within the context of this scope, I don't think I'm susceptible to the attack that perhaps I am within a "fortress of reason," even though I recognize the importance of defending why we believe what we believe. In the same way that I view true science and true religion as complementary. You want to know what true religion is? Consult James... hehe. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that... even those who are not Christians.
Hmm. My wink must have been misinterpreted. Any time you engage in thought you are susceptible. Why? Semantics. It must be true or false and 'knowing the truth' is not the same word and meaning you are conveying here. Read the textus receptus version.
And I will not even try to argue that Christianity as a belief system implies that works are unnecessary. What's the point of having legs if you never walk? What's the point of having a belief system if it's never evidenced in your life?
On the same vein, what's the point of incomplete submission by belief systems and acting based on them alone? Faith swallows works.
Granted, Christianity to me is more than just a belief system as traditionally defined -- it's not a moral code, a set of do's and dont's, a doctrinal set. It is more than just a way of life -- it's a defining characteristic of an individual. But perhaps all "belief systems" are like that. That's something else I wanted to uncover with this thread, but I've been met with quite a bit of opposition.
Not really. This is what Moonbeam and Engine are saying, albeit in their typical, amusing, and idiosyncratic ways.
The thing is, so little can sway people, that it comes down to knowing what one has seen and heard, being able to communicate it, and then leaving it up and praying (if we're talking about a Christian perspective), which is not only outside a formal system, but is not even within the same idea range.
I suppose maybe we have conflicting definitions of "formal system." For me, it is entirely consistent for a Christian to hold to this methodology. But I think we are essentially in agreement on these lines.
Formal system is a definitional term within classical mathematic theory and logic. I try to stick to common ground to explain myself clearly. And yes, I think we are saying the same thing. Look at what Moonbeam and Engine are attempting to point to with their idea of a stop of thought.
Final question: do you really think that the Creator made all reasoning inherently as circular as Planet Earth?
I am Alpha and Omega. Yes, because of that, it must be. Which is why I agree with the need for sound thought but emphasize the other side. 'cause all you need is love.
erm, our respective rejoinders have been reconciled. Your points were well made and your words tell me you mean the same thing I do, put differently. A good way to end the thread.
Cheers ! 🙂
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread
