Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
From: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (andrew_at_heartmdphd.com)
Date: 10/07/04
- Next message: beachhouse: "Re: hey"
- Previous message: listener: "Re: Use herbs to lower your cholestrol"
- In reply to: Bob (this one): "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Next in thread: Bob (this one): "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Reply: Bob (this one): "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 08:30:50 -0400
Bob (this one) wrote:
>
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:<10lkc3n375rmv17@corp.supernews.com>...
> >>>
> >>><snipped --> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y29152A69>
> >>>
> >>>>>>Colonists overthrew the king and all his "authorities that
> >>>>>>exist [which] have been established by God."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>God used the colonists to replace one government with another
> >>>>>of His choosing.
> >>>>
> >>>>And the proof for this is...? Right. I remember the party line
> >>>>now. That it succeeded means that it was what God wanted. Right.
> >>>>Circular logic. It's true because it's true. Good thinking.
> >>>
> >>><snipped --> http://makeashorterlink.com/?B13425869>
> >>>
> >>>There are actually two proofs that something is within the will of
> >>>God:
> >>>
> >>>(1) The fact that something is successful.
> >>>
> >>>(2) The fact that those with God's gift of prophecy predict the
> >>>success.
> >>>
> >>>While it is well within your right to argue that (1) is circular
> >>>logic though it really is not (it is actually a fact).
> >>
> >>The full statement you're making is on the order of, "The proof that
> >>God wills it is the fact that something is successful."
> >>
> >>When an "explanation" is untestable, as this is, and assumes its own
> >>veracity, it is by definition circular.
> >
> >
> > Your inability to test an "explanation" does not make that "explanation"
> > either untrue or circularly fallacious.
>
> I gave *two* conditions that defined circularity and both are part of
> that definition.
When one part of a definition is invalid, the entire definition is
invalid.
Truth is simple.
> You have chosen to only deal with one. It's not a
> question of *my* inability, it's about the nature of the statement.
> *It* is untestable by anyone. And *it* includes
It is "testable" by anyone with God's gift of truth discernment...
...just as the stars are visible to the seeing but invisible to the
blind.
> > Moreover, "explanations" are not
> > capable of assuming anything.
>
> Assume in the sense of include.
By your argument, this need to assume to follow your argument
invalidates your argument.
Truth is simple.
> If you would prefer, it can also be
> written, "When an "explanation" is untestable, as this is, and
> includes acceptance of its own veracity, it is by definition
> circular." But this is quibbling, as is the next sentence.
That would be per your flawed judgment.
> > It is the author of the "explanation" who may
> > or may not have made any assumptions about the truth.
>
> The fact is that the sentence "The proof that God wills it is the fact
> that something is successful" is circular for the reasons offered. The
> reasons were in the post to which you replied and which you have
> deleted. They are these:
>
> Its factuality is a matter of faith, not logic. It is circular
> reasoning and it's a logical flaw called a "fallacy of presumption."
> It has many forms: "begging the question" - which means using it as
> its own proof; or "complex question" - which pertains to hidden
> premises that are assumed to be true.
This does not change the fact that your own counter-argument is circular
by the above definition.
> In the example, the assumptions deemed true without proof are: 1. that
> God wills anything and, 2. that God willed the specific event or
> series of events. They are matters of faith, not empirical fact. It
> can still be applied equally to any transgressor and his transgressions.
These "assumptions" are not assumptions for me because I discern them to
be true.
> >>Its factuality is a matter of
> >>faith, not logic.
> >
> > The truth depends neither on faith nor on logic.
>
> This is another untestable sentence that falls into the same logical
> trap as the passage immediately below. It assumes that there is an
> absolute truth.
Again, this would not be an assumption for me because I discern the
truth.
> It assumes that you know the truth.
There is no assumption here. The writer of the sentence knows the
truth.
> It assumes that it
> exists independently of any kind of thought.
That is the definition of the truth. Again, no assumption.
> It assumes that we can
> know truth.
It seems you are unable.
> This implied definition is more stringent than a
> dictionary definition, to the point of unusability since truth is
> generally seen to be qualitatively viewed.
Actually, this definition is simpler.
> Things can be more true or
> less true than other things.
Truth is not quantifiable.
> That would be the generally accepted
> understanding of truth. It's also how the realities of the workaday
> world operate.
It would seem that what you perceive as reality is not the truth.
> >>It is circular reasoning and it's a logical flaw
> >>called a "fallacy of presumption." It has many forms: "begging the
> >>question" - which means using it as its own proof; or "complex
> >>question" - which pertains to hidden premises that are assumed to be true.
> >>
> >>In the example, the assumptions deemed true without proof are: 1. that
> >>God wills anything and,
> >
> > Correct.
>
> Unfortunately, without that proof, whatever follows from it isn't
> logically valid.
Truth trumps your "logical validity."
> >>2. that God willed the specific event or
> >>series of events.
> >
> > Incorrect. This is not assumed but inferred from the outcome.
>
> Sorry. No.
Your objection does not change the truth.
> The outcome can be explained by other lines of thought
> equally well.
The truth does not serve to explain an outcome.
> If the assumption that God wills anything isn't proven,
> the rest that ostensibly follows from it isn't proven, nor can it
> logically be inferred.
Absence of proof does not alter the truth.
> >>They are matters of faith, not empirical fact.
> >
> > Incorrect. The latter (#2) is not a matter of faith but a conclusion reached
> > after observing the outcome.
>
> No.
Sorry, your objection does not change the truth.
> The conclusion that can be reached is that it was successful (from
> one viewpoint, and distressful from the opposite one - variable values
> of truth).
If truth appears variable, the initial premise is invariably wrong (i.e.
a person is unable to discern the truth or a person, who can discern the
truth, does not have an unobstructed view of the truth).
> Cause cannot be attributed without proof of the initial
> premise and the subsequent reasoning line.
>
> >>It
> >>can still be applied equally to any transgressor and his transgressions.
> >>
> >>This is much like the question: "What is your best explanation for the
> >>common prevalence of ghosts?" It assumes that there are ghosts and
> >>that they're common. Both unproven elements.
> >
> > It was not a question but a statement regarding the truth about the supremacy
> > of God's will.
> >
> > Though you may disagree with the use of the outcome to prove that "God used
> > the colonists to replace one government with another of His choosing," you
> > asked the question and this remains part of the answer.
>
> No.
Your objection does not change the fact you asked the question and got
the answer.
> It remains part of *your* answer that is entirely based on *your*
> faith.
Nonetheless, it undeniably remains my answer to your question.
> There is no proof in anything you've said that would offer
> anyone else that conclusion unless they shared your faith.
Those who can discern the truth do not require proof for the truth just
as those who can see do not require proof for what they see.
> >>>(2) is not circular logic by any stretch of the imagination (even
> >>>in the interpretation of the fact as proof).
> >>
> >>It isn't circular, but it also isn't a logically valid statement. It,
> >>too, has assumed premises not proven, even more than the initial
> >>statement.
> >
> >
> >>(I'm assuming a common understand of what the word
> >>"prophecy" means - an accurate foretelling of some future event or
> >>events.)
> >>
> >>The flaws in the (2) statement "proofs" above include: 1. That God
> >>wills anything; 2. that God gives gifts of prophecy; 3. that any given
> >>person has the gift; 4. that any given prophecy is a result of the
> >>gift; 5. that the prophecy can't more easily and logically be
> >>attributed to shrewd observation and insightful judgement or blind
> >>luck or ambiguous statement or some other more mundane explanation.
> >>
> > You may certainly disagree with the proofs however let it not be written that
> > you were not given what you asked for.
>
> I wasn't given proof.
You were given proof. Without the ability to discern the truth, you are
unable to accept these proofs.
> I was given your items of faith.
No. You were given proof.
> Your saying
> that it reflects God's will isn't proof of anything except what you
> believe, independent of any proof.
You were given proof, though you reject it.
> >>Back to the source of this discourse. Romans 13 says don't defy
> >>authorities. You say, among other things, that it only applies to
> >>individuals not to groups.
> >
> > I have written that groups that have God's blessing define a new authority
> > rather than a defiance of authority.
>
> That would be your *interpretation* of something beyond Romans 13. It
> also assumes that God offers blessings to various insurrections and
> coups d'etat when you haven't proven that God offers any blessings at
> all.
God's blessings are described throughout the Holy Bible.
> >>Then you change and say it doesn't apply to
> >>individuals when they're doing God's will.
> >
> > Would suggest you reread my posts.
> >
> >>When all is said and done,
> >>God doesn't say anything beyond "don't do it." Who with the "gift of
> >>prophecy" said anything about the American revolution?
> >
> > Source: http://makeashorterlink.com/?F21342879
> >
> > Sir Thomas Browne, 1682
> >
> > A contemporary of Milton, Sir Thomas Browne wrote a tract entitled "A Prophecy
> > concerning the Future State of Several Nations," in which he predicts that
> > "America will be the seat of the fifth empire."10 This tract was published in
> > 1684 and is based on verses supposedly sent to him by a friend entitled "The
> > Prophecy."
> >
> > "When New England shall trouble new Spain,
> > When Jamaica shall be lady of the isles and the main;
> > When Spain shall be in America hid,
> > And Mexico shall prove a Madrid;
> > When Africa shall no more sell out their blacks
> > To make slaves and drudges to the
> > American tracts;
> >
> > "When America shall cease to send out its treasure,
> > But employ it at home in American pleasure;
> > When the New World shall the Old invade,
> > Nor count them their lords but their
> > fellows in trade;
> >
> > "Then think strange things have come to light
> > Whereof but few have had a foresight."
> >
> > All of these things have come to pass since Browne penned these verses.
>
> Really? Mexico shall prove a Madrid?
Yes. Mexico (city) is now as if not more populous with spanish-speaking
people.
> Whatever the hell can that mean?
See above. It seems obvious to me.
> As for New England troubling new Spain, these guys thought that the US
> was merely an extension of England.
I do not believe that these guys viewed the colonies as "New England" at
the time.
> A century later, the very premise
> of this nonsense was wrong.
We still to this day refer to the northeastern states of the U.S. as
"New England."
> These cryptic ramblings are the sort of prattle that was fashionable
> at the time with cigars and brandy. What is the fifth empire?
The U.S. is an empire.
> Jamaica
> is an international trifle.
It is a popular tourist attraction (i.e. lady of the isles and the
main).
> Our balance of trade is intensely
> negative, we "send out our treasure" in the billions of dollars every
> month.
What I discern by "treasure" is gold and silver.
> This is no more substantial than the ramblings of Nostradamus
> or Jeanne Dixon.
Imo, "New World shall the Old invade" and the abolition of slavery were
very substantial prophecies that irrefutably came to pass.
> Is Alexis De Tocqueville a prophet or a very shrewd observer? He
> predicted a lot of very accurate things about the evolution of this
> country. He explained his rationales and it looks like he's a very
> smart guy with a rich and useful imagination.
Would suggest we focus on one prophet at a time.
> > In
> > fact, they only seem remarkable when the early date is considered. Although
> > there is little need of explanation today, Browne seems to have to accepted
> > these words as genuine prophecy and provided a commentary explaining them at
> > length shortly before his death.
>
> Whatever Browne thought, they're still nothing much.
It seems that Browne thought his "friend" was a prophet. Do you have
any evidence that Brown was incorrect in this assessment of his "friend"
?
> Prophecy has to
> be true to be of any account.
I discern that the "verses" from Browne's friend are true.
> Googling the word "prophecy" didn't turn
> up much here.
Non-sequitur.
> >>Russian
> >>revolution? French revolution? How many people have this "gift?" How
> >>can anyone tell? Name a few.
> >>
> > Imo, the example above should suffice for illustrative purposes.
>
> No.
Your objection is meaningless.
> Just because it was called a prophecy doesn't make it particularly
> credible. What it posits isn't in fact the case that unfolded. No
> case; no prophecy.
According to your flawed judgment.
> >>The justification/explanation above for why it's ok to violate the law
> >>is based on inconsistent and logically invalid premises not proven or
> >>in evidence other than as articles of faith - not logical by
> >>definition.
> >
> > Again, what I discern is that groups of people possessing God's blessing
> > define a new authority rather than a defiance of authority
>
> Sorry again. No.
Your objection does not change what I discern.
> You're claiming that your "gift of discernment" leads
> you to this conclusion. This makes it worse, not better.
Sorry my ability bothers you.
> You still
> haven't proven that this "gift" exists (your online citations were
> interesting but certainly not proof) and you haven't proven that you
> have it if it does.
The proof is discernible throughout this thread. If you see someone
navigate himself/herself confidently through a briar patch without
hardly a scratch, you have the proof that s/he has God's gift of vision.
On the other hand, if you see someone unable to correctly quote a
passage from the Book of John (ie John 9:39-41), you have proof that
s/he is spiritually "blind."
You have your proofs though you will likely always reject them.
> The clear circumstances where you're wrong would
> seem to give lie to your claims about it.
You seem to be confusing God's gift of omniscience with His gift of
truth discernment. This is not unexpected for those who lack the
latter.
> You're merely doing another
> logical fallacy which is "appeal to authority" which in this case is
> God. You have not offered any proof that you can do this.
See above.
> >>While faith has its own validities, this is not a good
> >>example of them.
> >>
> > This is about truth and not faith in the truth.
>
> No, it isn't.
Your objection does not change the truth.
> It's only about your articles of faith. YOu haven't
> demonstrated that truth is an entity that can be reasonably dealt with
> as absolute and independent. Quantum physics says that you can't.
Truth trumps theory.
> I
> say so, too.
Truth easily trumps you.
> And offering your stretched interpretation of an abstruse point from
> the bible as "truth" is also invalid. You haven't proven the terms
> that lead to your conclusions, so the conclusions can't be said to
> have been demonstrated.
>
> The things you've posited as true that remain unproven include:
> 1. That God wills anything.
> 2. That God wills the things you say he does.
> 3. That events demonstrate this unproven will of God.
> 4. That a gift from God of prophecy exists.
> 5. That is applies to the situation under issue.
> 6. That there is a gift of truth discernment.
> 7. That it always works.
> 8. That you have it.
> 9. That absolute truth exists.
> These are untestable assertions. There's no objective test to verify
> that they're real. They may well all be true, but not one has been
> proven to be so. Thus, they can't be used as premises for any other
> statements.
See above.
> So, Romans 13 remains the standard. Anyone who violates it is in
> trouble with God.
Not when God has commissioned of group of people to establish the
authority that is described in Romans 13.
Truth is simple for those who discern it.
> Bob
You remain in my prayers, dear Bob whom I love.
May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so
that you too will escape satan's rule and torment of your soul after
you die.
Because God's Word has condemned you
(http://makeashorterlink.com/?G33F51E69), please consider the OP
before it is too late:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
-- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ ** Who is the humblest person in the universe? http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048 What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48 Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
- Next message: beachhouse: "Re: hey"
- Previous message: listener: "Re: Use herbs to lower your cholestrol"
- In reply to: Bob (this one): "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Next in thread: Bob (this one): "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Reply: Bob (this one): "Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
