If you can't figure out what's wrong with #2, you are not thinking or engaging in good faith.
— Lionino
You should state what's wrong with it. — Hallucinogen
:roll: Well, this is like saying(2) If some observation corresponds to some Bible-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Christianity is true. — Hallucinogen
Many people have had experiences of visiting Heaven or Hell, or seeing an angel during prayer. Others still, see visions of Christian-specific events or symbols. This is an argument that proceeds on this basis, that they serve as evidence for Christianity. — Hallucinogen
Too subjective, you need some objective way to verify that the experience is veridical. — Sam26
Well, this is like saying
'If some observation corresponds to some Star Wars-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Jediism is true.' — 180 Proof
The Bible says the Sun sets on the West. We see the sun sets on the West. Is that evidence of Christianity? Of course not. — Lionino
You are aware, I suspect, that as far as Islam in concerned, Christianity is false, right? Jesus is not god and and the Crucifixion story is a myth. So an Islamic person who has the experience of Allah and Mohammad is confirming his/her belief that Christianity is not the true religion. That is certainly what Muslims I have met have told me. Conversely, the Christian vison confirms that Islam is not true and Jesus is God. How do you resolve this psycho-cultural conundrum? — Tom Storm
(3) If praying induces experiences for a biological reason, then prayer-induced experiences are not observations of reality but hallucinations.
It is comical that God intentionally bothers to mysteriously appear to random people at random times and yet stays quiet when a little Nepali child is being ripped to shreds by a Bengali tiger. Curing children from cancer is somehow a violation of free will, but turning a little lump of blood into liquid like in the "miracle" of Saint January doesn't violate free will at all, does it?
:roll: These are not the droids you are looking for.If we observed midichlorions, it would indicate Jediism is true. — Hallucinogen
If cancer and tigers didn't exist couldn't you still make this same argument? — Count Timothy von Icarus
What ratio of ills would need to be eliminated from the world to make it "good enough?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
If they did, would a 50% reduction in cancer rates work as well? Only 10%? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Did we not have free will in the Garden of Eden?
But then how can there be any final beatific return, apokatastasis, the accomplishment of exitus and reditus in salvation history? Won't people always just turn away again eventually? — Count Timothy von Icarus
The idea here is that a higher good (and for man full conformity to the image of God) requires a sort of self-transcedence and not merely the fulfillment of what is desired by nature. — Count Timothy von Icarus
It is not about the arbitrary level of suffering in this world, but about making so that the amount of pain in life isn't so horribly ridiculous — Lionino
Is this much suffering really needed for self-transcendence?
Though this might work as the basis of a useful fiction to solve the above trouble for Christian eschatology, is self-transcedence permanent? Can't one fall back into imperfection?
At the same time, given apokatastasis is not orthodox, I don't give it much merit.
I'm not sure exactly what is "orthodox" here. — Count Timothy von Icarus
.In any case, the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church. — Catholic Encyclopaedia
Because the goal is deification and once deification has occured the will is not corruptible. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Catholic theologians dance around this issue quite often — Count Timothy von Icarus
SO I supose one question is, can such an argument be constructed? — Banno
Alright. Don't Mormons too believe they will become godlike themselves — leaving aside the whole planet thing?
And yet now Catholics take the blood at Mass every week. — Count Timothy von Icarus
How absurd does the world need to be for us to become existentialist overcomers? How meaningless does it need to be for us to become self-generating overmen? — Count Timothy von Icarus
The problem of the Fall and prelapsarian sin is: how can anyone truly "freely" choose evil? Wouldn't choosing evil imply either ignorance of the fact that it is evil or else "weakness of will/incontinence?" There is no rational reason to choose the worse over the better. Therefore, if someone chooses it they are either unable to choose the Good, mistake the worse for the better, or else their actions are arbitrary and determined by no rationality at all. And this would seem to imply that the Fall must be explained in terms of some sort of fundemental weakness of will or ignorance, in which case the question is "why was this imperfection included?"
You said address what bert1 was responding to (180proof's post), not bert1's reply to 180proof. — Lionino
Anyhow, not only that but bert1 himself said he agreed, not just 180proof. — Lionino
And it is not like what I said has any room for disagreement, it is something obvious. — Lionino
There is a phenomenon referred to as Christianity.
Are you saying anything else other than this? — I like sushi
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.