God and the paradox of rational mind

[El_Machinae]

Both love and 'red' are evident to those who not only have the organs required to understand them, but also need to be described.

Love is like a circle; just because we build an approximate and can describe the ideal - doesn't mean the ideal exists.

For starters, I am not a Christian.

Ha! I knew it! I didn't think you really were based on your history.

(I'm not trying to rub it in or anything, I'm just pleased with myself. Hmmn, I don't know how to type what I'm saying to disallow the possibility of offense, but I really don't mean any.)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Now now, be nice; John HSOG, I understand, actually was Catholic but is in the process of finding a new path.

 

[El_Machinae]

I am trying to be nice; it's just really hard to type what I'm trying to say. The 'mean' thing is what I said in October, when I said I couldn't tell that he was Christian.

I'm pretty sure his 'enlightenment' was not a mere 1.5 months in the making

 

[Kozmos]

Logis is heresy in the eyes of the Church. Always has and always will be.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Which church? There are lots.

 

[JohnRM]

Both love and 'red' are evident to those who not only have the organs required to understand them, but also need to be described.

Love is like a circle; just because we build an approximate and can describe the ideal - doesn't mean the ideal exists.



Ha! I knew it! I didn't think you really were based on your history.

(I'm not trying to rub it in or anything, I'm just pleased with myself. Hmmn, I don't know how to type what I'm saying to disallow the possibility of offense, but I really don't mean any.)

I was a Catholic then. I have since decided to leave the Church and am currently researching Judaism as a possible route of conversion.

 

[JohnRM]

I am trying to be nice; it's just really hard to type what I'm trying to say. The 'mean' thing is what I said in October, when I said I couldn't tell that he was Christian.

I'm pretty sure his 'enlightenment' was not a mere 1.5 months in the making

Actually, it is just that. I started reading the Bible about a month and one-half ago and since then, I have become "enlightened".

 

[Brighteye]

Christian thought regards God as not being in some place, or at a particular time, but as having some kind of universal existence that was independent of place and time. The individual Christians that exist in our everyday world, and the particular courageous actions that believers perform, are always fleeting, but they partake of the timeless essence of true existence; and this is an indestructible ideal.

Plato's theory of Ideas or Forms...
Everything comes into existence and passes away, everything is imperfect, everything decays. This world in space and time is the only world that our human sensory apparatus can apprehend. But then there is another realm which is not in space or time, and not accessible to our senses, and in which there is permanence and perfect order. The soul is timeless and spaceless, they are our permanent forms and constitute ultimate reality.

But Plato's theory of ideas is a load of bunk. Just because we've created a concept doesn't mean that it has any existence outside of our minds. I would agree that principles and ideas are unchanging though. Once I've had my idea, or enunciated a principle, that can never decay. However, the principle only exists as a concept. Plato believed that every word related to something. This isn't true.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually, it is just that. I started reading the Bible about a month and one-half ago and since then, I have become "enlightened".

Thanks.
Please don't take offense at my statements, then. My bumbling fingers just aren't typing what i mean.

What was in the Bible that made you reject it? How are you going to reconcile with your views about abortion with the jewish beliefs?

 

[puglover]

And why Judaism? They can't even follow their own Law anymore.

 

[El_Machinae]

Just because they cannot possibly follow the law, doesn't mean that it's not true...

 

[Greek Stud]

A mathematical equation doesn't mean that it is a matter of perfect order. Chaos theory is based on this, for example - quite chaotic things coming from often misleadingly simple differential equations. More explicitly, there is a mathematical equation for the decaying of the universe - the second law of thermodynamics.

Nonetheless mathematics exists for everything in this universe; that is the harmonic and unifying power beneth the theories of choas and disorder.

The whole universe can be expressed in terms of mathematical equations. Extremely complex and messy ones most of the time, a good number of them unsolvable by our current methods, but mathematical equations nonetheless.

This complements the ideas of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. The expression of mathematics can define everything. There is order even with disorder. Aristotle would point you towards what you imagine to be perfect in your mind. Although we ourselves cannot create perfection, we can still imagine it. It is therefore possible to believe that somewhere out of space and time that such perfection exists.

I know you are posting in two threads - but what exactly are you basing this on?

Mostly ancient Greek philosophers, a few newer ones too who refer to the ideas of the ancient Greeks. The Byzantine Holy Fathers not only gave credit towards being enlightened by God Himself, but much of what Christianity represents comes from the logic expressed by many famous ancient Greek philosophers.

 

[GenMarshall]

I was a Catholic then. I have since decided to leave the Church and am currently researching Judaism as a possible route of conversion.

You do understand that Judaism has a hard path to convert to. I could not convert to Judaism mainly because of the circumcision and their Koser law/doctrines. Much like I could not go into LDS because of their dietary laws against tea.

I know I know, Catholicism has their own dietary laws on meatless (No red meat and poltry) on Fridays during lent. But that does not pose a problem to me because there are fake vegetarian meats in the market, plus sushi would also cover the "Fish Friday" thingy (Though I would have to try fish first)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

To be honest, you should be more concerned about whether the religion is true than how it affects your diet.

 

[GenMarshall]

To be honest, you should be more concerned about whether the religion is true than how it affects your diet.

Well, I don't want to give up the things I love and enjoy like tea (LDS). Or go through the tedious task of searching for kosher foods and going through the task of kosher cooking (Judaism).

 

[Greek Stud]

But Plato's theory of ideas is a load of bunk. Just because we've created a concept doesn't mean that it has any existence outside of our minds. I would agree that principles and ideas are unchanging though. Once I've had my idea, or enunciated a principle, that can never decay. However, the principle only exists as a concept. Plato believed that every word related to something. This isn't true.

Philosophy is not a matter of credability; its conception is the idea of thought. You do not have to agree with Socrates, Plato or Aristotle. And if you do not believe that your ideas are perfect nor can perfection exist then you are not forced to pursue perfection; nor to ferver over an imperfect idea. From my understanding you agree with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in part when you state that ideas and concepts can be visualized as being perfect, but you don't believe their concept that thought exists out of time and space, where Plato places thought which is perfect.

You'll have to explain how Plato believed every word was related to something. What is something? What does related represent?

 

[JohnRM]

Thanks.
Please don't take offense at my statements, then. My bumbling fingers just aren't typing what i mean.

What was in the Bible that made you reject it? How are you going to reconcile with your views about abortion with the jewish beliefs?

Jewish beliefs are...

The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only."

Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.

Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.

With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.

"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law."

I have my doubts as to exactly how Judaism as an entity supports abortion. I do not doubt that most Jews support it, but that should not be construed to mean that Judaism itself supports abortion. I am not aware of any specific effort by Judaism, as a religion, to use donations to further a policy of continued access to abortion for women. Therefor, I take no issue with most Jews' position on that issue. I am perfectly content to keep that in the political realm. In the end, I do not feel that my view on abortion conflicts with the Jewish faith.

 

[JohnRM]

And why Judaism? They can't even follow their own Law anymore.

I could say the same of Christianity, but that is not the issue. The wrong that others do are no justification for any wrong that I may do, nor is it any consideration otherwise.

 

[King Flevance]

At the last time I posted on here I had to go out of town soon and needed a break from this thread anyways.

Upon coming back, I realise a struture change.

Belief comes in at least because of faith.

Let's grab mom coming to pick us up again.

You believe mom is coming to pick you up. Because you have faith that she will do her best to get there.

P1. Belief comes before faith.
P2. If you have belief, then faith is rational.
P3. The rationality of belief depends on the person.
C. Therefore, faith is rational.

EDIT: P1. Faith comes before or at the same time of belief.

So all I have to do is change P1 to it being the other way around. So you were right about that Bill3000. P2 is now supported by P1. I still say belief depends on the person. Now to that support for P3 supporting P3 you mentioned here:

It's an horribly weak argument. P2 and P3 being false nonwithstanding, P1 offers absolutely no support for P2 and P3. (Nor does P3 offer support for P3) Since P1 offers no support for the conclusion, it's pointless using it as a premise, and pointless talking about it.

As well, P3 offers incredibly weak support. A much better premise would be "Belief is rational", making your argument logically strong, but that belief is not necessarily rational, making your argument false if you did switch to this one anyway.

Here is how P3 supports P3.
The rational belief in something comes from your knowledge on the subject at hand. If you are unwilling to learn about it and study the bible and learn how you should have faith in God instead of why you should, then you will never allow yourself to belief. And to throw back in on P1, without faith there cannot be belief.

Conclusion - Faith is rational because without it, you can never have belief in a God you are unaware of.

Faith is like trust. Without trusting someone, how do you know you can?

I just had to P1 messed up and it supported nothing which you caught. And I couldn't catch where my footing went. I am not going into the other stuff unless you know something in it that is useful and I am not seeing.

As to what you think of me concerning whatever, I don't care. I am not going to dig up all that for no reason. Just posting this because I still do not think faith is irrational. Kind of curious to the replies now, this thread has travelled on since I was last here.

I will probably catch up on it later today or tonight.

 

[Brighteye]

From my understanding you agree with Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in part when you state that ideas and concepts can be visualized as being perfect, but you don't believe their concept that thought exists out of time and space, where Plato places thought which is perfect.

You'll have to explain how Plato believed every word was related to something. What is something? What does related represent?

I missed the meaning of what I've cut.
Ideas and concepts are eternal, and I do give them higher status than mundane facts and figures. Logic is perfect, and I can see how Plato reached the idea that ideas and concepts have their own metaphysical realm.
However, I disagree. This is an unnecessary influx of mysticism into an otherwise reasonable view. Concepts are simply the refined essence of our thoughts; we see data and refine into a rule or law that summarises it all. They are a more refined idea, but are nonetheless merely concepts.

Plato's theory of ideas was that we have ideas because we base them on something. He suggested that we have the idea of a chair because somewhere there is a 'perfect chair' which encapsulates the essence of chairness, and from which this idea springs. You can also justify God in this way. The only problem is that it is fallacious, being based on a misunderstanding of language.
Ideas do not always spring from things. They are concepts of their own, without the need for a metaphysical realm where they take shape in a pseudo-physical reality.