metaphysical understanding

The NT says that "in Him all things consist" (Col. 1.17) and "in Him we live and have our being." (Acts 17.28) So without him, us and all creation would not hold together.

Unless he gives us life, we are dead in trespasses and sins. We don't say "He attach himself" but rather we are "in him." Read John 17. Forget the metaphysics, and read the scriptures. Start with the Gospel of John.

 

That's not true in our household Humble.

My wife says stringbeans are great and eats a lot of them.

I can't stand them.



HankD

 

I think the things you mentioned above is in your spirit and has nothing to do with the brain. That's just my opinion.
I don't think any human can ever answer some of your questions. Only God knows how all that works.

 

Not even a "picometer."

I think studies in the "paranormal" are a lot of phooey and people who believe in such things are ignorant or are trying to hoodwink people. Or, worse, they are very much like some of the practices spoken against in the OT.

Dt 18:10 There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer Dt 18:11 or a charmer or a medium or a wizard or a necromancer,

Christians should confine their studies to the "normal" (ie physics, mathematics, geography, etc), the Bible, and orthodox Christian doctrine.

I'm not trying to be uncharitable, but some of the stuff you are asking about is a little bit "out there" (at least in my ignorance of it).

 

I have recently started debating athiests and I did not realize how much of our belief is based on Faith.

 

First, truth is not subjective, but always objective. Whatever is true, is true for everyone.

Please clarify why you believe truth is objective. Truth can never be objective, just as faith is not objective. Now I am not talking about the moral absolutes specifically outlined in the scriptures, such as murder and adultery, but those "gray areas" so to speak. If truth is as objective as you claim, why do Baptists debate Calvinism? If truth is objective, why do some Christians hold the separation of races, in dating and marriage, to be moral absolutes? etc., etc. The idea of objective truth lacks flexibility, it cannot account for the various values we all must choose from, or the changing situations we all face. What is truth for me, may not be truth for you. The theory of objective truth is a logical fallacy, because it is unattainable. We will never agree 100% on all facets of what is truth.

 

Technically all of our beliefs are based on faith, because we believe, through faith, that the Bible is the word of God.

 

That's not true in our household Humble.

My wife says stringbeans are great and eats a lot of them.

I can't stand them.



HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, yes but......

It's always true that "Hank's wife says stringbeans are great." It is true for all people, all times, and all places, that Hank's wife says stringbeans are great. This is an absolute truth that she says this.

Likewise, it's true that "Hank dislikes stringbeans." This is also an objective, absolute truth, that is true for everyone.

It's also an absolute truth that my mother boiled them WAY too long. Nothing worse than very mushy stringbeans.

 

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but I think that you might still be putting more emphasis on spirit than the the scripture does.

First, the NT says we will be bodily resurrected. So our spirits will be reunited with our bodies in heaven. We will not be eternal ghosts.

Second, as creatures, we are body/spirit beings. We have both, and they make up "us". So it's not as if the spirit is the "real" us, but the real us is a mixture of body and spirit. For example, reall brass is a mixture of two metals. If you separate them, it wouldn't be brass.

 

I've recently been studying scripture and apologetics and they're relation to atheism, and I did not realize how much of our faith is based in reason and evidence.

 

This statement that you made, that "truth can never be objective," is this statement a subjective statement? Or is it always true? If it is subjective, then the opposite could be true, that "truth is always objective." On the other hand, if this statement is an objective truth, then objective truth is possible. Either way, the statement "truth can never be objective" is self-refuting, and shows that truth is always objective.

Even though all truth is objective and absolute, it does not mean that we can always determine the truth. For example, it is true that "The temperature is cold at the south pole" but I might not be able to determine the exact degrees to the fourth decimal point. Or, to use your example, we may not be able to find out the exact answer to what to do about dating an marriage, but this does not mean that conflicting positions are both correct. There is an answer to the dating and marriage question, whether or not we can determine it. So we debate, trying to arrive at what is really true.

Yes, you are correct, that it lacks flexibility. It is always true that 2+2=4, and this is an inflexible truth that does not account for various values and opinions.

Further, are you saying that "it is a bad thing for objective truth to be inflexible"....? If so, then are you not giving us an absolute truth? If you are not, then it could be a good thing that objective truth to be inflexible.

This statement that you just made, is this statement to be applied to everyone, or just to you? If this statement is to be applied to everyone (as it presumes to be), then it is an objective truth that is true for everyone. But if it is only true for you, then it is OK for me to hold to objective truth. Either way, objective, absolute truth wins out.

See, what happens is that all this "true for you, but not for me" statements, and the "truth is relative" stuff sounds nice at first, but what is actually happening is that the people who say these things are standing on the pinnacle of their own truths, that they hold to be ojbective, and ask everyone else to believe. The person who says "truth is relative, not ojbective" is making a statement that is supposed to be true for everyone.

.

Again, the fact that we don't agree on "how hot is hot" does not prove that heat does not exist, or that we can't determine how hot is the correct temperature for a particular application.

To make a biblical example, Christians may disagree about dietary laws, but does this mean that God has no correct teaching on the subject? Usually, all it means is that someone is failing to understand the teaching, or that God has not told us yet. But to say that "Eating pork is a sin" and "Eating pork is not a sin" are both true, is an illogical statement that violates the first principles of logic. In reality, we just have to try to figure out which one is true.

 

Our brother is asking about the reality of the spirit and how we can ascertain it is there.

In the science of Psychology, this is called the "mind/body" problem. How is it that a mere physical mechanism on the one hand can generate such a self-perceiving "mind" that has a will and a self-centered point of view - a consciousness?

Nobody knows yet.

How is it that a consciousness can affect a material body?

Nobody knows yet.

So the spiritual aspects of man, the soul of man, are not "understood". That they exist, we directly perceive in our own case, and take it on faith for our fellow man.

We take it on faith that God has decided to give us information about our Souls through the Bible.

He doesn't explain how souls can possibly exist. He explains what our souls must do in order to attain eternal life.

 

Thought is the software that works on the brain hardware.

Soul is the software that works on the thought hardware.

Spirit is the software that works on the human soul hardware.

 

This statement that you made, that "truth can never be objective," is this statement a subjective statement? Or is it always true? If it is subjective, then the opposite could be true, that "truth is always objective." On the other hand, if this statement is an objective truth, then objective truth is possible. Either way, the statement "truth can never be objective" is self-refuting, and shows that truth is always objective.

Again, I disagree. Truth is not objective, in and of itself, because when you logically introduce truth as objective it is limited by the fact it is seen subjectively as a hypothesis. It is indifferent to existence in the sense of actuality, (i.e., it logically cannot be objective, hence absolute, and hypothetical together).

Yes, you are correct, that it lacks flexibility. It is always true that 2+2=4, and this is an inflexible truth that does not account for various values and opinions...

Exactly, mathematics, in and of itself, is objective and absolute. 2+2 never equals 5. Truth, however, is speculative and abstract. Even when claiming truth is objective, we are, as previously mentioned, subjectively presupposing the objective and the hypothetical together.

This statement that you just made, is this statement to be applied to everyone, or just to you? If this statement is to be applied to everyone (as it presumes to be), then it is an objective truth that is true for everyone. But if it is only true for you, then it is OK for me to hold to objective truth. Either way, objective, absolute truth wins out.

See, what happens is that all this "true for you, but not for me" statements, and the "truth is relative" stuff sounds nice at first, but what is actually happening is that the people who say these things are standing on the pinnacle of their own truths, that they hold to be objective, and ask everyone else to believe. The person who says "truth is relative, not objective" is making a statement that is supposed to be true for everyone.

Again, I disagree. To be sure truth exists, but our perpetual striving to attain truth, cannot be understood metaphysically. Think of it this way. In the ethical sense, striving to attain something as abstract as truth is really the representation of the constant learning by existing individuals. What do we know? We know that truth exists, although it is abstract, and we will never really know all that it entails. We also know that we exist. We are "real" and truth is "real", but striving after truth is nothing more than realizing truth exists abstractly. Which again leads to the subjective conclusion that "what is true for me, may or may not, be true for you".

 

Are you saying that it is absolutely true that there are no absolute truths? or is it only relatively true that there are no absolute truths?

Somehow I get the impression that you are trying to correct me. Since you obviously are, then you're giving your position as true, and mine as untrue. How can you do this, if there is no objective truth?

 

The concept of truth, in and of itself, is absolute. We know it exists, however, any interpretation of truth is relative, because truth, by nature, is speculative and abstract.

Secondly, I was not correcting you. I was clarifying my stance on subjective truth. As it was an interpretation of truth, it is subjective, not objective, nor is it the only interpretation.

 

I don't get it......this sentence seems to say that truth is absolute, and truth is speculative and astract. I'm not understanding how it can be both. Further, it looks like a statement that purports to be true for everyone.

So.......
If your position is not the only interpretation, does this mean that mine could apply also?