Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It presupposes nothing. It merely takes the claim that you make about possibility and  applies it clear and pitilessly, rather than your own sentimental poultice, carefully avoiding that it destroys everything you want to hold dear.  It is your claims that do this, not mine. Your argument that eats itself like a manic Ouroboros, swallowing, burning, disintegrating in its confused denial of its consequences.

why should the non material be chaotic and not prone to logic or reason?

[Andy]

It burns through experience because anything, as wigginhall notes, is then allowed. Experience is entirely worthless since it is mere recall. To privilege it would mean that you would need to be able to claim its truth. Since experience can be contradictory that would fall to logic, but if logic is if x then y that falls to the corrosive agent you wish to splash about like Brut.

If anything can be true, nothing is.

That presupposes that the supernatural is lawless chaos though doesn't it. In other words is a philosophical naturalism the only place where logic and reason exist. I think the material world representing order and a non material world representing chaos is an article of faith rather than a logical inevitability.

No, it just means that when describing things naturally we are assuming there are limits and constraints that lead to the perceived consistence and order. Describing things non-naturally just removes those limits and constraints without imposing new ones, ones that would have to be distinct from natural ones in order to be able to distinguish between the two.

[Nearly Sane]

And again Vlad, the point is not what I am claiming about the supernatural, it is what you are portraying it as that causes the issue. Please read posts rather than ignore.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It burns through experience because anything, as wigginhall notes, is then allowed. Experience is entirely worthless since it is mere recall. To privilege it would mean that you would need to be able to claim its truth. Since experience can be contradictory that would fall to logic, but if logic is if x then y that falls to the corrosive agent you wish to splash about like Brut.

If anything can be true, nothing is.

That presupposes that the supernatural is lawless chaos though doesn't it. In other words is a philosophical naturalism the only place where logic and reason exist. I think the material world representing order and a non material world representing chaos is an article of faith rather than a logical inevitability.

No, it just means that when describing things naturally we are assuming there are limits and constraints that lead to the perceived consistence and order. Describing things non-naturally just removes those limits and constraints without imposing new ones, ones that would have to be distinct from natural ones in order to be able to distinguish between the two.

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
Why should naturalism be arbitrarily be redefined as what is physical or material?

[Andy]

It burns through experience because anything, as wigginhall notes, is then allowed. Experience is entirely worthless since it is mere recall. To privilege it would mean that you would need to be able to claim its truth. Since experience can be contradictory that would fall to logic, but if logic is if x then y that falls to the corrosive agent you wish to splash about like Brut.

If anything can be true, nothing is.

That presupposes that the supernatural is lawless chaos though doesn't it. In other words is a philosophical naturalism the only place where logic and reason exist. I think the material world representing order and a non material world representing chaos is an article of faith rather than a logical inevitability.

No, it just means that when describing things naturally we are assuming there are limits and constraints that lead to the perceived consistence and order. Describing things non-naturally just removes those limits and constraints without imposing new ones, ones that would have to be distinct from natural ones in order to be able to distinguish between the two.

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?
Why should naturalism be arbitrarily be redefined as what is physical or material?

I haven't said they should. Infact, I've even made the point to you before now that you're wrong to equate PM with PN.

[jeremyp]

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?

No reason why it shouldn't.  Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?

No reason why it shouldn't.  Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.

Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all,  the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.

[BeRational]

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?

No reason why it shouldn't.  Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.

Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all,  the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.

Could God be good and evil at different times as the mood takes her

[jeremyp]

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?

No reason why it shouldn't.  Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.

Well first of all lets take good and evil

No let's not.  We are not trying to determine good and evil here, we are trying to determine the truth of supernatural claims.

[Nearly Sane]

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?

No reason why it shouldn't.  Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.

Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all,  the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.

Nope, because you have got rid of that by breaking down cause and effect and expereince as well. You are applying logic and reason materially, you haven't explained anything about some concept where if x, thenm y is broken how you can begin to do this. Please stop trying to use philosphically naturalism when you have abandonned it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?

No reason why it shouldn't.  Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.

Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all,  the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.

Could God be good and evil at different times as the mood takes her

There would have to then be a higher moral standard one that would be consistently Good something that could or more to the point would be evil would not be that standard. i.e. Not God.

[BeRational]

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?

No reason why it shouldn't.  Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.

Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all,  the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.

Could God be good and evil at different times as the mood takes her

There would have to then be a higher moral standard one that would be consistently Good something that could or more to the point would be evil would not be that standard. i.e. Not God.

Why?

[Andy]

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?

No reason why it shouldn't.  Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.

Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all,  the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.

Could God be good and evil at different times as the mood takes her

There would have to then be a higher moral standard one that would be consistently Good something that could or more to the point would be evil would not be that standard. i.e. Not God.

Which then makes a nonsense of what good means. If everything emanates from this consistently good thing, then there is no not good as you've removed all contrast.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?

No reason why it shouldn't.  Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.

Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all,  the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.

Could God be good and evil at different times as the mood takes her

There would have to then be a higher moral standard one that would be consistently Good something that could or more to the point would be evil would not be that standard. i.e. Not God.

Which then makes a nonsense of what good means. If everything emanates from this consistently good thing, then there is no not good as you've removed all contrast.

Don't see why?. You seem to have added the idea of omniemanation. I haven't

[jeremyp]

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?

No reason why it shouldn't.  Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.

Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all,  the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.

Nope, because you have got rid of that by breaking down cause and effect and expereince as well. You are applying logic and reason materially, you haven't explained anything about some concept where if x, thenm y is broken how you can begin to do this. Please stop trying to use philosphically naturalism when you have abandonned it.

Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic.  The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true.  For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.

[Andy]

There would have to then be a higher moral standard one that would be consistently Good something that could or more to the point would be evil would not be that standard. i.e. Not God.

Which then makes a nonsense of what good means. If everything emanates from this consistently good thing, then there is no not good as you've removed all contrast.

Don't see why?. You seem to have added the idea of omniemanation. I haven't

What, you don't believe that at a fundamental level, everything comes from a god? What are the things you believe exist that don't fundamentally come from god and also brought about the concept of "not good"?

[Gordon]

yes that's key but then the NT has three accounts of resurrection. Jesus, Lazarus and the Boy raised by St Paul after falling out of the window. So resurrection per se not Christianity but resurrection of Jesus yes.

So, to ensure that I understand your point, you are saying that of three resurrection accounts in the NT only one, that of Jesus, is a certain historical fact? If so, in what way do the other two accounts differ to the extent that they aren't quite so certain?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?

No reason why it shouldn't.  Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.

Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all,  the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.

Nope, because you have got rid of that by breaking down cause and effect and expereince as well. You are applying logic and reason materially, you haven't explained anything about some concept where if x, thenm y is broken how you can begin to do this. Please stop trying to use philosphically naturalism when you have abandonned it.

Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic.  The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true.  For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.

I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.

[floo]

But again why should logic and reason not apply to a non material domain?

No reason why it shouldn't.  Perhaps you'd like to tell us how to apply it.

Well first of all lets take good and evil as proposed in your God and evil leprechaun
example. First of all,  the fact that Good and evil are not material aside, we can conclude that an evil leprechaun or indeed Satan are not Good but evil. That is an application of logic and reason.

Nope, because you have got rid of that by breaking down cause and effect and expereince as well. You are applying logic and reason materially, you haven't explained anything about some concept where if x, thenm y is broken how you can begin to do this. Please stop trying to use philosphically naturalism when you have abandonned it.

Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic.  The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true.  For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.

I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.

You are JOKING!

[jeremyp]

three resurrection accounts in the NT

Actually, there are six, not including all the saints that Matthew says were raised when Jesus was crucified.

There are also three resurrections in the OT.

http://stronginfaith.org/article.php?page=114

[jeremyp]

I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.

But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?

[Nearly Sane]

Actually, I'd be prepared to let him have deductive logic.  The problem is, you can't say anything with deductive logic without some premises that you believe to be true.  For example, I suspect Vlad is about to make an argument based on the premise that God is good, but unlike statements about the material world where we can observe behaviour, he has no way of establishing the probable truth or otherwise of his premise.

You might be, but I would suggest that deductive logic is based on an acceptance at some level of philospohpical naturalism. So for example Vlad wants to privilege his experince but if there are contradictory experiences, these are some how allowed in Vlad's world as not necessarotly being tur or false. Someone could either have an expereince of no god or some god with contradictory elements and, yet they are all somehow in Vlad's view true. Since this seems to me to against deductive logic,  he cannot have that either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.

But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?

What verifiable method of any love have we?

[Shaker]

I think the ''goodness'' of God is established by his love and the contrast of that love with our own. For our relationship with him is gauged by our love for him, and love for our neighbour and ourselves.

But what is your verifiable method of showing that God's love really exists?

What verifiable method of any love have we?

Givers and recipients of love have to exist for starters. From then on I should say that it's a matter of observing behaviour consistent with how we define love and what we regard loving behaviour to be.

[ippy]

                                      Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

                                                Why bother what would be the point?

Especially when no one has managed to produce any evidence that would verify the very questionable superstitious, magical and mythical elements we are expected to be taken in by.

ippy