Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy For discussion about general and fundamental problems connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 30th, 2015, 12:09 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Fort Lee NJ
Posts: 119
preachrs debate God

Those who have read my essay "What is God," at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/god.htm

might be interesed in God-related conceptual difficulties of some preachers, quoted at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/god2.htm

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia).

Please share these links with those who might be interested.
kowalskil is offline  
Old September 30th, 2015, 06:29 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Franklin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by kowalskil View Post
I read the first 6 chapters of this and I will comment on that. I will read the rest if this discussion continues.

Theology can be based on many different things. Theology that is like mathematics is bad theology. Examples include the Talmud, Plato (an atheistic theology), and Spinoza. All are horrible. Theology can also be based on faith and tradition as Christianity is. This is somewhat positive, resulting in the evolution of tradition-based memes. Theology can also be based on inductive reasoning, based on historial evidence. Old Testament theology does this. This is by far the best kind of theology.

There are two kinds of sciences, those that can be subject to experimental testing and those that can't. In the second category we find paleontology, astronomy, and anthropology. Good theology uses essentially the same method as this second category of science.

What is wrong with theology that is like mathematics? This is like science without validation against the real world. It is fine to use deductive logic to arrive a hypothesis, but it is totally unacceptable to consider that hypothesis true until it is validated against the real world. But this is precisely what the Talmud, Plato, and Spinoza did. Arguments from the Old Testament don't use deductive logic, they always use inductive logic, so they are sound for arriving at truth.

You wrote "Laws of Nature, which Spinoza identified with God, control evolution of the world." To my knowledge, this is wrong. Spinoza identified the universe with God, which is very different form identifying the laws of nature with God. The difference is critical. The Old Testament is a book of ethics. The book doesn't make sense if God is not cause. Defining God as the laws of nature works perfectly because this makes God cause, and in fact this is my belief. But defining God as the universe eliminates God as cause and undermines the whole Old Testament, and so this belief is completely unacceptable.

I have read a portion of the "Guide for the Perplexed" by Maimonides. I can't think of any other author in history who I despise more than Maimonides. Maimonides was an arrogant verbose racist who destroyed the spirit of the Old Testament. Modern Judaism has suffered enormously from his influence. Luckily there are a few Orthodox Jews who still really do understand the spirit of the Old Testament. Here is one:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0096BCVPG/

Last edited by Franklin; September 30th, 2015 at 06:37 PM.
Franklin is offline  
Old October 2nd, 2015, 05:24 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Franklin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 1,192
Come on kowalskil, respond. I know that you are old, but the young are virtually all morons, so I appreciate any conversation with those from older generations where intelligence still existed. Dysgenics has almost completely wiped out human intelligence.
Franklin is offline  
Old October 2nd, 2015, 06:02 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franklin View Post
There are two kinds of sciences, those that can be subject to experimental testing and those that can't. In the second category we find paleontology, astronomy, and anthropology. Good theology uses essentially the same method as this second category of science.
The fact that you think paleontology, astronomy and anthropology cannot be subject to experimental testing tells me you don't know squat about paleontology, astronomy and anthropology.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Tags
debate, god, preachrs



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Debate Polari New Users 80 March 23rd, 2013 02:07 PM
Debate Competition-The Debate Game Benjamin Thomsen Political Talk 110 June 4th, 2012 07:51 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.