Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Objective Truth and Faith (with John Crowe)

Jonathan Doolin shared a link.


Are there objective truths about God?
Answer: The dictionary definition of "truth" includes "a... belief that is accepted as true. So that all fervently and honestly held beliefs, are, according to the dictionary, not necessarily "true" bu.
JONATHAN ANSWERED A QUESTION ON QUORA.
Comments
Linda Doolin One day you will find out for sure, Ed
LikeReplyJanuary 17 at 4:46pm

John Crowe I noticed a lot of "assuming" there even is objective truth whatsoever in this answer(hints of relativism),or possibly a 'hope' or 'belief' that there is such a thing,especially for a "continuing education".

A "belief in a continuing education" isn't founded upon anything in particular,just a hope or assumption in a method.
But the method itself presupposes an objective truth and a 'reason' for a pursuit of that truth.

But what "hope or belief" does the relativist assume?
It seems it is a 'blind faith',and an inconsistency within his professed worldview.

So,ultimately,the relativist would also deny there even is an "objective truth of God"(especially as revealed in Scripture),let alone an "objective truth" about anything whatsoever.
LikeReplyJanuary 17 at 8:30pmEdited

John Crowe The method of inductive reasoning relies upon/assumes logical absolutes for correct conclusions.
Logical absolutes presuppose an ultimate,objective truth or standard of truth.

This discussion,my obvious assertions(and your own statements above),will lend itself toward the objective Truth of the Bible(even though you have denied objective truth of the Bible in our past discussions).

Obviously,we could debate the historicity and transmission of the Bible(which would be very lengthy),since it seems you analyze and make critiques of the text internally(though I believe inconsistently),we can proceed from there.

The foundation of objective truth and therefore absolute truth is found at the beginning and continues throughout the Bible.
Gen1:1" In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (And eventually man/woman).

God,being the Creator of everything and everyone,is obviously the Standard of Truth that gives meaning to the concepts of objectivity and 'absolute-ness' and therefore-certainty.
He,being the Creator,has the right to impose His standards,laws,morality,etc.upon His creation.

An absolute Mind(God),provides the necessary preconditions of intelligence to make the comprehension of knowledge(and knowledge itself) possible.
Much more could obviously be said about this.

So,
that being the case,and with your assertion that "we can never know for sure etc.",
we can analyze your statements ...

@"Hasty generalization",this conclusion requires an analysis of true/false factuals,data,biases,etc.
An objective truth is assumed when someone objects to a false claim or bias that leads to the accusation of a "hasty generalization".

And yes,I believe you're correct,if you "can never know for sure" and cannot "know this to be true",ultimately,how can we speak truthfully and be "honest" about anything?

Why/how even analyze,discern,and conclude if you cannot know anything to be certain?
Why even critique the Apostle John,Job,etc.?
And how can you justify a consistent moral objection against John,etc.?

How can you "trust those who can tell you the results of their errors" when they perform their experiments if no one can appeal to an objective standard of truth to differentiate between truth and error?

Yet,
you do "assume",have confidence, live,experiment,etc as though there is.

Why is that?

However,I do believe you are vaguely admitting that you are living by a 'faith' when you state that you "assume" an objective truth..

Maybe God is leading you to Himself and His necessary absolute,objective Truth!!
wink emoticon
LikeReplyJanuary 23 at 5:46pmEdited

Jonathan Doolinhttps://en.wikisource.org/.../An_Enquiry_Concerning_Human...

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding - Wikisource, the free online library
1. Moral philosophy, or the science of human nature, may be treated after two different manners; each of which has its peculiar merit, and may contribute to the entertainment, instruction, and reformation of mankind. The one considers man chiefly as born for action; and as influenced in his measures…
EN.WIKISOURCE.ORG
LikeReplyRemove PreviewJanuary 19 at 4:04am
Jonathan Doolin 90. But in order to encrease the probability against the testimony of witnesses, let us suppose, that the fact, which they affirm, instead of being only marvellous, is really miraculous; and suppose also, that the testimony considered apart and in itself, amounts to an entire proof; in that case, there is proof against proof, of which the strongest must prevail, but still with a diminution of its force, in proportion to that of its antagonist.

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior.*
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 4:06am
Jonathan Doolin Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature.
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 4:08am
Jonathan Doolin There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation.
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 4:08am
Jonathan Doolin http://biblehub.com/matthew/12-39.htm

He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

Matthew 12:39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be...
But he answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
BIBLEHUB.COM
LikeReplyRemove PreviewJanuary 19 at 4:23am
Jonathan Doolin https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

6 Then the Lord God provided a leafy plant[a] and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant. 7 But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the plant so that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to live.”
LikeReplyRemove PreviewJanuary 19 at 4:26am
Jonathan Doolin >>However,I do believe you are vaguely admitting that you are living by a 'faith' when you state that you "assume" an objective truth..

I didn't mean it to be vague.

I meant "I have faith that objective truth exists." Being aware that we are always susceptible to the "Problem of Induction" doesn't mean I stop believing there is objective truth.

Karl Popper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction) says "Science should seek for theories that are most probably false on the one hand (which is the same as saying that they are highly falsifiable and so there are lots of ways that they could turn out to be wrong), but still all actual attempts to falsify them have failed so far (that they are highly corroborated)."

Isaiah 28:16 So this is what the Sovereign Lord says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.

>>it seems you analyze and make critiques of the text internally(though I believe inconsistently),we can proceed from there.

Yes, I am analyzing and making critiques of the text internally.

Science should seek, (or rather, I seek, using the process of science) theories that are highly falsifiable. When Jesus says "the sign of Jonah" I think... "That sounds highly falsifiable." However, when I go and read the text of Jonah, I realize Jonah sees several signs. But the sign of him being swallowed by a whale is not a sign for him, but a sign for the King of Ninevah.

The sign expressly aimed at Jonah, is the tree in the desert, which God provides for him.

Every human in the world has seen this sign. And so long as we remain an adulterous generation, believing and seeking miracles, (praying for God's wrath on the Ninevites, for instance) we will continue to fail to see them... And we will "hope to die"
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 4:56am
John Crowe The problem of induction is a problem for the atheist,because he has no reason to believe that the laws he trusts in for his experiments or even daily tasks of living will be the same in the future as they have in the past...

The Christian has confidence in the God who created this world to uphold his laws in the future like the past,because He alone is omnipotent.

One example right after the flood
Gen.8:22
"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of what you posted,I'm not sure what you're getting at.
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 5:36am
Jonathan Doolin >>I'm not sure how to respond to the rest of what you posted,I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Can you form any impression of what I've said? Try repeating it back in your own words.

I cannot confirm whether your impression of what I said is accurate, but if you repeat it back to me in your own words, then I can correct any errors of your interpretation of the words I have posted, or confirm whether you seem to understand what I am saying.

But this is EXACTLY the problem of induction. You are saying "I'm not sure what you're getting at." That implies that you believe that I am getting at something, but you have no idea what it is.

Do you have a reason to believe that what I am saying has meaning?
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 5:59am
John Crowe @"I have faith that objective truth exists"
A consistent definition of "faith" would include a foundation of some sort;what is it that you put your faith in,to provide for absolute objective truth?

A blind faith?
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 6:08am
Jonathan Doolin Is there any other kind?
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 6:09am
Jonathan Doolin Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1)
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 6:13amEdited
Jonathan Doolin The foundation is "hope"
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 6:11am
Jonathan Doolin I hope that underlying all of my imperfect observations, there is an objective reality. I am also confident that underlying all my imperfect observations there is an objective reality.
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 6:12am
John Crowe Yes,I do have a reason.
Because God upholds His Laws,therefore I can have a consistent foundation for my faith/confidence,hope,etc. that the laws of logic will make our conversation/words,etc meaningful yesterday,now,and In the future.

This faith/hope/confidence,etc in the God of the Bible is the answer to "the problem of induction".

'Blind faith' is lacking a foundation and therefore a reason.

You quote Heb.11:1,this word "faith" is taken from the Bible,obviously it is faith in God through Christ.

'Blind faith' is a term meant to describe an inconsistency in a professed confidence in nothingness,or possibly chance/randomness.

"Confidence" translates from the Latin 'confidere',meaning 'with faith'.

@"hope"
Hope in what? Again there needs to be a foundation to make this "hope" meaningful.
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 8:24amEdited
Jonathan Doolin When I asked "Do you have a reason to think what I am saying has meaning" what I was actually asking was "do you have faith in me?"

Your answer "Because God upholds his laws" is a reasonable answer, too. But God doesn't really prevent me from saying incorrect things or meaningless things. God gives us the freedom to make mistakes, or be jerks.

My foundation is "I hope, therefore I hope."

Are you arguing that there is no objective reality, or that it's just not worth putting one's faith in?
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 8:28pm
Jonathan Doolin Also... When I say "faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance of what we do not see."

There's a period at the end of that, so that's the end of the definition.

Certainly, you may add definition 2. and say "Faith is confidence in God through Christ"

But that wasn't my definition of faith.

My definition of faith is the more generic variety. We can discuss the latter definition as well, because (with my current understanding) I have no objection to coming to faith in God through Christ....

I just have objection to this destruction of all other forms of faith.
LikeReplyJanuary 19 at 8:51pm
John Crowe @"there's a period at the end of that so that's the end of the definition."
This is a classic example of 'cherry-picking' a Bible verse and assigning a personal definition to fit ones agenda.
Obviously,to exegete meaning of the word "faith" you would have to read it in its context from the surrounding subject matter.

The rest of the chapter explains the foundation of the faith of various persons in the Bible is in God.
Very plainly stating in Heb.12:2"looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith etc."

Do I "have faith in you"?
We are discussing the foundation for objective truth and the justification of how we can have 'faith' in the transcendent laws that govern our logical rationality and therefore 'correct' communication to one another.
People make mistakes and are jerks at times,yes;God's absolute logical standards hold us accountable and morally obligate us to be rational,those standards enable and provide us an ultimate moral/epistemological etc.foundation to discern mistakes or 'jerk-ness'.
So, no,I don't put my faith in you,myself, or people as the foundation of these standards,I hold you,others and myself morally accountable to these standards.

@"I hope,therefore I hope."
Again,what is the foundation of that hope? Yourself?
If so,that would seem severely limited and finite when considering our topic of "objective truth".
LikeReplyJanuary 20 at 12:19am
Jonathan Doolin No I am not cherry picking the Bible. I am giving you MY personal definition of faith.

What you are doing is called "word-policing" wherein you do have a personal agenda, and you will not let other people define the words to describe the concepts that they are explaining.
LikeReplyJanuary 20 at 5:58am
Jonathan Doolin You clearly have no faith in me, because you are not seeking to understand the words that I am saying. Instead, you are attempting, at all times, to undermine and misinterpret my meaning.
LikeReplyJanuary 20 at 6:00am
Jonathan Doolin Unfortunately, I cannot prove to you that I should be listened to. If you listen but constantly reject my definitions, then you are hearing without comprehending.

You say you do not understand what I mean. Then when I say what I mean, then you say I am "cherry-picking".

How can I cherry-pick my own personal meaning?

How can you criticize me for having my own personal meaning when you claim to what to understand what I am saying?

I asked "can you form an impression of what I said? Try repeating it back to me in your own words."

You said Because God upholds His Laws,therefore I can have a consistent foundation for my faith/confidence,hope,etc. that the laws of logic will make our conversation/words,etc meaningful yesterday,now,and In the future.

But for the laws of logic to make our conversation have meaning, we must adopt the view that the words of our conversation have meaning.

It is not the responsibility of the speaker to have the same definition as the listener. It is the responsibility of the listener to try to recognize when "that is not my definition". Then, if the listener does not agree on definition, to propose a different word for that definition.

Hebrews 12:2 says "2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."
LikeReplyJanuary 20 at 6:34am
Jonathan Doolin Hebrews 12:2 says "fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

That's the NIV version. You say he said "author and finisher" That's waaaayy different than "pioneer and perfecter"

"Pioneer" implies a leading-of-the-way to an understanding of what faith is, so that others can use it.

"Finisher" implies a destroyer of faith, so that no one else ever need to bother with faith again.
LikeReplyJanuary 20 at 6:42am
Jonathan Doolin "Pioneer and Perfecter: " (One who finds something that already exists, and makes it stronger and better, for use by others.)

"Author and Finisher" (One who creates something from scratch, and completes it, setting it up on a shelf to be admired by others.)

But which kind of faith do you have--faith in the name of Jesus as Author and Finisher of Faith, or faith in the teaching of Jesus as Pioneer and Perfecter of Faith?

And which definition of faith goes with which concept of Jesus?

(1) "Faith is confidence in God through Christ"
- That goes with Jesus being Author and Finisher of Faith, and with John's Gospel
(2) ""faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance of what we do not see.""
- That goes with Jesus being the pioneer and perfecter of faith, and with Matthew, Mark, Luke,

Now, one thing that seems crazy to me, is that when I directly quote Hebrews 11:1, you say I am cherry picking. When you Make up your own defintion that Faith is confidence in God through Christ... based on a passage that says Jesus was either author or pioneer of faith...

You're niether cherry-picking nor poop-picking here. You're just flat-out rejecting the defintion of faith given in Hebrews 11.

If I cannot pick cherries out of the Bible, then what is it for? A tree is known for its fruit. If this tree bears no cherries, then what fruit does it bear?
LikeReplyJanuary 20 at 7:06am
John Crowe Well I apologize if I upset you.
"Faith/confidence" usually has an ultimate foundation,I understand your "generic faith" definition,like 'I have faith in my favorite football team to win etc.',but I thought we were discussing "objective truth about God"? And therefore from the Bible?( so I'm not "word policing")

The "view that the words of our conversation have meaning" is a view derived from the laws of logic and therefore rationality.

If one simply arbitrarily chooses to reject those laws then why not just accept this sentence?-' Milk chooses blue rug after the down sky?/!@'
We conform and are morally obligated to an outside objective truth to be rational;God's objective Truth.

I used the NKJV of Heb.12:2 "author and finisher etc."
Reading the rest of Heb.11 and culminating with Jesus as the "author and finisher" is a simple understanding.
"Pioneer and perfecter" sounds pretty similar to me.

Again,you personally construct from an agenda or skeptical bias.

Your 're-interpretation of "destroying etc." is quite arbitrary and agenda-driven,especially when you continually try and connect some conspiracy to the Apostle John.

Nothing personal my friend,but that is severely lacking,quit wasting your time with that nonsense.
But whatever...
LikeReplyJanuary 20 at 8:55amEdited
John Crowe So I'll simply ask:do you put faith in God or yourself for "objective truth"?
LikeReplyJanuary 20 at 8:58am
Jonathan Doolin I know when I am telling the truth and being careful with my words. I know when I have been clumsy with my words. I know when I am saying what I believe, and I know when I am playing devil's advocate. I know the correct interpretation of my words, even before I say them. I know when my understanding is clear. I know when my understanding is vague. So I do not NEED to have faith in myself. I KNOW myself.

When I say I put faith in objective reality, there is another way of thinking of it: I have faith that God has NOT designed the universe to present a false-face of of objective reality to me.

If you want to call this "faith in myself" then certainly you could. But I would tend to call it "faith in my senses" rather than faith in myself...

So when I read Hebrews 11:1, I have faith in my senses, that I am reading a definition of faith.

When you read Hebrews 12:2, and say "This is the actual definition of faith" I think you err.

Because my senses and understanding tell me Hebrews 12:2 is an attribution, or an etymology, or accreditation... not definition.

>>when you continually try and connect some conspiracy to the Apostle John.

As far as John's betrayal goes, once you see it, you can't unsee it. It runs throughout the gospel, and is continued in 1John, 2John, 3John, and Revelations. Either Job or John is the worthless shepherd from Zechariah 11:17. John-Gospel-Jesus is the abomination that causes desolation, standing where it does not belong. Job and John are the Olive branches mentioned in Zechariah 4:12. and Revelations 11:4.

Only the mighty sea-lion can come up from the abyss to attack them and kill them. ( http://wondermark.com/1k62/ ) And the meek shall inherit the earth.

John isn't all bad. John 16:13 says "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

But even this is flawed. For the spirit of truth will say "I don't yet know what is to come. All I can say is what I hope for."



#1062; The Terrible Sea Lion
Check out this Wondermark comic!
WONDERMARK.COM
LikeReplyRemove PreviewJanuary 20 at 10:46am
John Crowe @"I have faith that God has NOT designed the universe to present a false-face of objective reality to me"
Excellent,that's what I'm talking about.

@"faith in my senses"
Before that though you would have to have an objective/absolute Truth/standard to validate those senses to be accurate.

The NIV is slightly less accurate in translation I believe.

Heb.11:1 faith is translated:
Faith-πίστις pistis, pis´-tis; persuasion, i.e. credence;conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; constancy in such profession; (by extension) the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:—assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

Hope:
ἐλπίζω ĕlpizō, el-pid´-zo; to expect or confide:—(have, thing), trust,anticipate

So obviously this assumes an 'object' of this faith.

Heb.12:2 "author" is translated:ἀρχηγός archēgŏs, ar-khay-gos´; a chief leader:—author, captain, prince.

"Finisher" is translated:τελειωτής tĕlĕiōtēs, tel-i-o-tace´; a completer, i.e. consummater:—finisher.

So He is the 'object' Who completes this "faith".(not a "destroyer")

There are several examples of Christ/God being the "object" of this faith,and not ourselves in any way.

Here are just a few from the ESV.
Romans 10:17- "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."

Ephesians 2:8-9"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Proverbs 3:5-6"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths."

1 Corinthians 2:5"That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God"

Luke 17:5"The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”

Galatians 2:16 "Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."

I don't see the point in responding to "terrible sea lions" or personal conspiracies about John,Job,etc.
LikeReplyJanuary 20 at 2:16pmEdited
Jonathan Doolin You have presented a great deal of evidence here, on the Biblical meaning of faith.

I have already acknowledged that you can define faith in this way.

I have presented a different definition of faith. I do not deny it is a different definition.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

You have said, "The NIV is slightly less accurate in translation I believe."

You attempt to demonstrate that the NIV definition is actually incompatible with verses from the English Standard Version.

I think, though that this definition of faith is only incompatible with certain interpretations of those verses.

Romans 10:17 is completely different in NIV: 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.

This is a significant difference in meaning, because ESV implies that your sense of hearing comes from Jesus. NIV just says your hearing of the message comes from Jesus.

Ephisians 2:8-9 says that your faith comes from God. Not from Jesus.

Proverbs 3:5-6 says "Trust in the Lord, and do not lean on your own understanding." but only if you ignore the entire context of Proverbs 1-2 could you think that here he means "Do Not Attempt To Understand." Proverbs 2:9 says: "YOU will discern righteousness and justice
And equity and every good course."

>>1 Corinthians 2:5"That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God"

The wisdom of Men says "I hate these people who tenaciously and persistently and politely ask for evidence I have against them, because even when I give them the evidence that condemns them, they will not accept it,,, I'm so tired of dealing with sea-lions."

>>Luke 17:5"The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”

And again, you ignore the Lord's answer.

And the Lord said, “If you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.

So, let's try it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK4wN0NpBD8

I posted a comment below, saying "You mentioned that mulberries take a lot of water. Can mulberries be grown in salt-water, without soil?"


How to Grow Mulberries
How to Grow Mulberries by Richard Skinner Hawkins Corner…
YOUTUBE.COM
LikeReplyRemove PreviewJanuary 21 at 9:36am
John Crowe I used the ESV in an attempt to mabey appease you,I guess that didn't work,I usually study from the NKJV.

Anyway,I see we've detoured to another rabbit trail once again.(or in this case "sea lions,mulberry gardening,etc. I guess :/)

Rom.10:17 is obviously talking about "hearing",comprehending,and accepting the Biblical message,not the 'sense' of physical hearing with the eardrum.

Eph.2:8-9 obviously I can make the case that Jesus IS God incarnate,which is THE primary Gospel message,even so, what difference does this make?(oh yea,if I remember correctly,you deny the Deity of Christ).

Prov.3:5-6 is not saying 'don't think',it's obviously saying to trust/have faith in God and the assurance of His Word.

1Cor.2:5,Lk.17:5 reads pretty plainly,but there you go with the sea lions,mulberries,gardening,etc,again!

We 'were' discussing how it is you just "assume" objective truth exists based on a "hope" or some 'blind Faith' that has no foundation.
I'm simply asking how you justify any kind of certainty or absolutes from this sort of "assuming" to perform anything in life?

You brought up "the problem of induction",so how do you know for certain the laws of logic/physics/mathematics,etc. will be the same in the future as they have in the past?

What is your foundation? Blind hope/faith,randomness/chance,luck,etc.

Or is it the sovereign Creator God who upholds all things through Christ?

NKJV Heb1:1-3"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power,

NKJV Col.1:15-17" He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."
LikeReplyJanuary 21 at 2:22pmEdited
John Crowe Lk.17:6 is not to be taken literally,as you are suggesting with your antics,surely you see this!
Jesus is obviously speaking in hyperbole and parable as He often does.

The whole point of this 'exaggeration' is that faith (even a small amount)ultimately comes from God not ourselves,we put our faith in God,again,not ourselves. An example of what Eph.2:8-9 is talking about.

A small amount of authentic faith(mustard seed) that comes from God can grow monumentally(into a tree).
And therefore we can do great things that otherwise would be impossible.

When the Apostles were initially given faith by God,and they preached to the people, God worked through them and Christianity grew tremendously(and still does today);which is another example of the mustard seed parable.
LikeReplyJanuary 21 at 1:57pmEdited
Jonathan Doolin I don't know a lot about hydroponics, but I see that there are a lot of fruits listed as hydroponically viable. I don't know how many varieties of mulberry there are... But if tomatoes, watermelon, cantaloupe, grapes, raspberries, blackberries, blueberries and strawberries, lemons and bananas can be grown hydroponically, it would not surprise me at all if mulberries can be grown hydroponically as well. (http://modularhydro.com/.../WhatCanYouGrowHydroponically...)

It would also not surprise me, terribly, if nobody has really tried... I mean really really tried, and been willing to devote their lifetime to experiment on trying to grow raspberries hydroponically in sea-water.

That is the "Synoptic" definition of faith... Where you have confidence in what you hope for... that you can make it work. When you get the mustard seed, that's the point where you actually finally figure out HOW to do it. That's when you realize "This couldtake me forty-five years, but I can do it. Or if I can't do it, my grandchildren will."

But that, to me, is what faith means. That you don't give up. That you keep trying. Even when everyone around you tells you how absurd your ideas are, you keep working at it until you succeed.

THAT is the sort of faith that comes from God, and can grow monumentally, into a tree--into technology--into making the deaf hear, the blind see, the hungry fed. That is the sort of faith that can end war, hunger, disease, violence.

To say "Jesus was exaggerating?" Nonsense. If you believe that you can get mulberry trees to grow in the ocean, and you've got the patience and know-how to get it to work, then that is a mustard-seed faith.

Especially at a time when Ocean Acidification is becoming a major concern. Even it's just the remotest possibility of happening of being able to draw that Carbon Dioxide out of the water into a massive edible food source would be a great boon for all mankind.

(http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification)

>> We 'were' discussing how it is you just "assume" objective truth exists based on a "hope" or some 'blind Faith' that has no foundation. I'm simply asking how you justify any kind of certainty or absolutes from this sort of "assuming" to perform anything in life?

You know what you hope for, and you work toward what you hope for. There are no assumptions about objective reality. It's all guess and check.

#1. Make a list of wild guesses
#2. Test your hypotheses against observation.
#3. Determine which of your wild guesses was closest.
#4. Revise and Repeat.

There's no point in that loop where you justify or assume any kind of certainty or absolutes, except you have confidence in your methodology until it breaks down. You take a guess and see what works. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
LikeReplyJanuary 21 at 7:38pm
John Crowe I acknowledge the resilience,drive,passion,yearning,etc. of man has resulted in discovering 'monumental' achievements.
I don't deny this in any way,and yes you could call this ,in some sense,"faith"or hope in a general,generic way.

This "faith" is only possible in a consistent Christian Theistic system where the sovereign,omnipotent,omniscient,omnipresent God upholds these laws to make these "monumentals" possible.

The atheistic scientist holds a 'blind faith commitment' in chance and randomness but borrows and positively acts upon the Christian Theistic system,even though he doesn't acknowledge(and often purposely ignores)and sometimes realize he's doing so.
Seemingly,as does your 'checklist'.

You spoke of a "confidence in the methodology"(again "confidence"translates-with faith).

I'm pointing out the preconditions that make your methodology possible(not the methodology itself);the "problem of induction" forces the skeptic to embrace a 'faith' and "assumption" in the uniformity of nature,but he has no reason and foundation to think everything(including laws of logic/rationality/language,physics,mathematics,nature,etc.),will behave uniformly and the same way in the future as it has in the past.

This is the "faith/assumption etc." that scientists and all people(atheists included) in general rely upon to comprehend/rationalize and justify an objective reality,and therefore,absolutes and certainty in methodology.
LikeReplyJanuary 23 at 9:49am
Jonathan Doolin >>You spoke of a "confidence in the methodology"(again "confidence"translates-with faith).

If you only have confidence... It is not faith.
If you only have hope... It is not faith.
If you see it plainly, It is not faith.

You have to have all three conditions... Faith is Confidence in what you hope for and assurance of what you do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for...

>> The atheistic scientist holds a 'blind faith commitment' in chance and randomness...

I would point you here toward a longstanding debate in Artificial Intelligence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVq39QbFQXE

There are really three views among atheistic scientists. One believes in a purely mechanical version of reality. A second believes in multiple universes, that whenever two possibilities exist, then the universe splits, and a third that believes in a sort of free-will, which I think Roger Penrose is a leading proponent.

For me, those arguing for the purely mechanical version of reality, where human minds and bodies are essentially "Turing Machines" which produce outputs for given input, is basically the same as the idea that you yourself have been championing... Romans 9:16, for instance.

To me, the theistic argument that everything is pre-determined, and the atheistic argument is pre-determined are identical. Both parties agree that the believers will remain believers, and the unbelievers will remain unbelievers...

The whole concept of predestination principle might be modeled in Matthew 13:15, Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10, and John 12:40.

And the central question, behind these verses, to me, is whether a person can actually CHOOSE to turn to Jesus, or if it is accurate that God has predestined each of us to make a choice.

This is the thing that the cynical atheists and John Gospel agree on... that they are predestined to do whatever they do.

And the thing where Synoptic gospel Christians and Roger Penrose atheists agree is that humans have choice, and free will, on matters of whether and which Jesus to turn to.
LikeReplyJanuary 23 at 11:19amEdited
John Crowe Rom.9:16(Rom.9) is essentially saying authentic 'saving' faith comes from God,(we cannot save ourselves by works),our salvation,and therefore faith,is a gift(by election).
He has mercy and compassion on whom He wills(v.15),and hardens whom He wills.(v.18)
He is sovereign over the salvation of His creation.

You seem to insist on reverting 'faith' back to a very generic definition,as some self-motivational pep talk or wishful thinking of sorts,I understand what you're saying but there is a deeper more defined (Biblical)definition.
But I guess our discussion will not get to that point.

@"Mechanical version of reality etc."?
You derived this conclusion from Rom.9:16??
I don't think so...lol
But anyway...

@"The atheistic/theistic are identical"?
The atheistic view claims that a persons genetics/dna,cells,etc determine the actions of how a person will choose,etc
Again,there is a precondition behind these factors(so called);God's sovereign decree.

Sure,a person makes choices,but it is God's eternal decree that initiate and(circumstantially) bring them to pass.
We've discussed this more in detail in the past.(but yes,we completely disagree)
LikeReplyJanuary 24 at 9:15amEdited
Jonathan Doolin I have a question, John.

Do some, any, or most evangelical Christians support the "Objectivist" phyliosophy of Ayn Rand?

I've posted this question on Quora:

https://www.quora.com/.../What-social-system-displays...

It relates to the six tenets of Objectivism I found on Wikipedis:

Objectivism's central tenets are
(1) that reality exists independently of consciousness,
(2) that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception,
(3) that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic,
(4) that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest),
(5) that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism,
(6) and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.

Now... I think I am in agreement with Ayn Rand's objectivism on points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. The only one where I have any extreme disagreement is point #5.

This I find reflected in Jesus' words "Nobody can serve two masters... You cannot serve both God and Money, If you love one, you will hate the other."
LikeReplyRemove Preview34 mins
Jonathan Doolin >>You seem to insist on reverting 'faith' back to a very generic definition,as some self-motivational pep talk or wishful thinking of sorts,I understand what you're saying but there is a deeper more defined (Biblical)definition.

I insist on using the definition given in Romans 11:1. There is nothing self-motivational here. It is to make a distinction between what is faith, and what is cynicism.

Romans 11:1 defines faith as follows: Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

That could be distinguished from an anti-parallel definition:

Now CYNICISM is confidence in what we DREAD and assurance about what we do not see.
LikeReply5 minsEdited
Jonathan Doolin >>You seem to insist on reverting 'faith' back to a very generic definition,as some self-motivational pep talk or wishful thinking of sorts,I understand what you're saying but there is a deeper more defined (Biblical)definition.

Now, are you criticizing "self-motivational pep talks" and "wishful thinking" on principle? Or are you just objecting to these things being tied to the word "faith"?

Are you wanting to condemn ALL wishful thinking, and self-motivational pep-talk?
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)