(03-05-2020, 07:19 PM)Drich Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2020, 06:30 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-05-2020, 05:59 PM)Drich Wrote: [ -> ]hey dumbass. Can i call you slow charlie? how about Slow moe??? two things. In the OP I do give a synopsis of he video. Then I gave you a specific invitation to a post you had asking question and pointing out the paradoxical nature of God. I told YOU specifically this video was create/just finished and it was about the very topic you brought UP!
Do you EVER think before you speak?
Might want to consider it.
In other words, your idea is that the bible is revelation from God and claims about the nature of God are therefore true. Bible literalism and revelation that tells us about what God is, and is not.
Kind of hard to tell from your description. Now, how can we test these claims? Scientifically i mean?
they solve all of your little paradoxes don't they? "the revelation about God found in the bible?"
And why would you be so daft as to try and fit the round peg of theology into the square shaped peg of science?
Can't you think for yourself? Not all academic endeavours need be filtered through science.
Science is but one tool in an intellectual man's tool box. it's like a hammer. Hammers are only good for two things smacking nails or smacking stuff apart. If you only have this hammer in your tool box it is only natural that you only see and want to make everything a nail.
Does language comprehension and translation need the hammer of science to be proven a legit academic pursuit?
does math? what about history? how much falsifiability is their in music, sociology, geography, topography, literature, or any other academic pursuits man undertakes?
Then why do you suppose there is a need for science to fit into category of a nail, just to beat it to death with the one tool you have?
Does this not show pure ignorance on your side? otherwise why can't you have a theological discussion within the rules and boundaries of a theological discipline? Theology is a screw that requires a no.2 phillips screw driver, it is not a nail IE your science can't help you here.
Theology is not much of a tool box. Really, the various problems of perfect being theology can't be solved, and strongly indicate that theology is at a dead end and is just spinning it's little wheels. The scientific method works. So why should it not be applicable to theology? And that is the crux of the problem here. Theology has no trustworthy method of founding itself and subsequent claims on anything trustworthy.
If we abandon the concept of testability of claims, We have empty mystery mongering, argument by empty assertion, or the problem of revelation. How do you demonstrate revelation is even possible, much less which revelation to take seriously?
Again, theology seems to make claims that are in the end, self defeating. If God creates all and is omnipotent, God is cause of all, the universe is determined and if God is good, why then moral evil? As I have repeatedly demonstrated, there are so many of these deep issues to resolve that cannot be resolved, we can safely abandon perfect being theology. The problem is that what is left is not the theology of supposed reliable revelations.
Now what? And the problems do not stop there. Trying to erect a possible God that avoids all such problems leaves us with such a lesser god, there is not much for that God to do. And still that God cannot be demonstrated to be true. Deist Gods. Process theology type limited Gods. Soon we are arguing about old fashioned nature gods, nymphs, nyaids and nature spirits, fairies and leprechauns.
So what are the rock bottom, foundations we have to start with in understanding the universe? Not God, occult forces, supernaturalism, Gods, et al. We start with a Universe that has natural materials, forces, and contains moral evil, natural evil, and no Gods making their presence known as per idle tall tales of the Pentateuch et al.
In science, the first thing a good scientist does if he or she has a hypothesis, is to examine it closely to see if it is rational, logical, does not contradict facts that are well established, and does not contain logical fallacies. If he or she fails, their colleagues will point these problems out.
In theology, I see that we get special pleading, if that.
I myself find theology's failures to be rather interesting as they tell me a lot about how theology fails. In the end, we start with unsupported hypotheses, not well attested, testable, facts to build on as a foundation. Science in the end is pragmatic, theology, occultism, metaphysics is not.