AJ Phillips,

One thing to point out is that before we hijacked this conversation to talk about several point regarding the Christian Faith, 13 pages of comments were given to the topic of if Christianity or any faith should be allowed to be discussed by students within schools. Your stance of arguing through philosophical and theological hurdles strikes the element that you are in very much favor to discuss religion. Thus by the topic of the forum I would hope this long conversation would at least point out that the topic shouldn't be forbidden. Especially to students who should only have restrictions to what they talk about if it is an actual danger to the community. (Gangs or pro terrorist stuff.). All else including religion on an accede mic level should be welcome to be talked about with in the school setting. Your ability to try and talk me out of my faith should be enough grounds that you agree with this topic being discussed in a general sense. Therefore should also be welcomed in a school setting.

Contend...

(.... Continued)

From your arguments we can tell two things (at the very least). 1) that you hold philosophical arguments as a source of authority when discerning what is true and what isn't. And 2) That your philosophy is rational, or in general any perspective against religion and faith is rational. The problem with these is that there is no means of testing what is more rational a philosophy then another, if you use philosophy alone. If you examine it you will surely come to the same conclusion. In scientific conclusions, x,y, or z must be true BECAUSE of the physical evidence with repeatable experience confirms this. It is the same with everything else. Experience is what confirms and corrects our understanding. Philosophy verses philosophy without any more experience to back it up holds no grounds for one to be more reasonable then the other. Thus it is worthless in the most practical sense because it will not lead to anything of more value but instead might add confusion. You should already know this because in another topic you backed up your claim that there is guilt in suppressing your sexual drive. You said you know this because you've experienced this.

(Continued...)

(Continued...)

One phrase you've been repeating to me in the last few comments has been, "I don't think you understand." I have given each of your points a counter point, or a counter explanation. Thus showing I understand your points, and I can reason with them showing how they can be in error. The most you can come back to them is repeating what you've already said or saying "how do you know it's real?" On the one hand I've already explained that pure rational is weaker then experience based understanding, and on enough points in my life I have a foundation to be grounded on in my faith.

On the other hand though, on the points that were addressed on a more theology and understanding level; Since you were not able to counter point any of my points by either acknowledging them and by only trying to weave doubt into them without good rational; a logical conclusion is that you did not understand them. Therefore I will try to explain in more detail some of the main points I made, do that you have no excuse of not understanding. If nothing else you can stand where I stand on your views in this conversation that I understand and I disagree. Hopefully though you will see at least some merit from what has been said here, perhaps later those words along with anything else God gives you, will grow in you and bring a better fruit then your current doubts.

(5 points continued soon.)

1st point. Discerning the truth.

In my opinion there are several levels of discernment. Our understanding and reasoning is the first level. As a whole what mankind has figured out through pure logic is amazing. Even as individuals, we have a good sense of discernment and can pick up cues of that might be right verses what sounds fishy. However as amazing as human logic is, it is the lowest authority for determine what is true and what isn't. Every authority above philosophy can correct or support the understanding we hold. Whether we make sense of the correction or not is second to the point that they can be corrected.

Higher then philosophy is experience. The more experience you have of a similar event the better your understanding will be from that kind of event. And the more experienced a person is, the wiser they are as a whole. Or to put another way, you want an experienced Doctor more then you want a fresh out of college Doctor. Though in both cases you still want one that is knowledgeable having experience trumps just a knowledge base.

Higher then experience is the bible. The reason why this is more valuable is because it is from God. And though God is greater an authority then the bible, for practical purposes the bible and God are on equal ground because one supports the other and does not correct the other. So on a practical application the bible is the foundation for knowing what is from God.

The reason God is higher then experience is because experience confirms the existence of God. But even if you don't have a witnessing experience, the world as a whole shows evidence that there is something greater out there. Once a person can come to terms that God is real and how great God is, then it is easy to navigate why God is greater then our experiences and has the authority to correct us above our experiences. Sometimes trust Him in spite of our experiences. Such as trust Him even when life takes a nose dive.

Your conclusions are incorrect, Not_Now.Soon.

<<1) that you hold philosophical arguments as a source of authority when discerning what is true and what isn't.>>

Not quite. I hold logic, reason, and evidence to be authoritative; the philosophical arguments are a means to convey and consider these.

<<2) That your philosophy is rational, or in general any perspective against religion and faith is rational.>>

It depends on what logic, reason, and the evidence suggest. That they are mine, or go against religion, is irrelevant.

<<The problem with these is that there is no means of testing what is more rational a philosophy then another, if you use philosophy alone.>>

Correct, which is why I hold logic, reason, and evidence to be authoritative.

<<In scientific conclusions, x,y, or z must be true BECAUSE of the physical evidence with repeatable experience confirms this.>>

They still need logic and evidence-based reason to interpret them, though.

<<It is the same with everything else.>>

Not necessarily. One doesn’t need test, say, whether a god could make a triangle with four sides. Logic alone can answer that one.

<<Experience is what confirms and corrects our understanding.>>

It can be one means, yes. But, in order to do so, one still needs to apply logic and reasoning to the experience in order to interpret it.

<<I have given each of your points a counter point, or a counter explanation. Thus showing I understand your points, and I can reason with them showing how they can be in error.>>

I think you might understand the problem with prayer now (i.e. its uselessness), but nothing I have said has been in error.

<<The most you can come back to them is repeating what you've already said or saying "how do you know it's real?">>

When there are simpler and more rational explanations for your experiences, yes, asking how you know a god is responsible for them is a perfectly reasonable response.

Continued…

...Continued

<<On the one hand I've already explained that pure rational is weaker then experience based understanding …>>

No, you have mistaken logical problems with philosophy, and falsely conflated experiences with testable and repeatable scientific experiments.

<<… and on enough points in my life I have a foundation to be grounded on in my faith.>>

Until you can rule out more rational explanations, I disagree.

<<... as amazing as human logic is, it is the lowest authority for determine what is true and what isn't.>>

Yes, but it’s all we’ve got, along with reasoning and evidence.

<<Higher then philosophy is experience.>>

No, experiences may count towards evidence, but logic and reasoning are still needed to interpret them, and they are entirely dependent on how we interpret them.

<<Higher then experience is the bible. The reason why this is more valuable is because it is from God.>>

But can you know that?

Your reasoning is somewhat circular, and this is Begging the Question.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging_the_Question

<<... God is higher then experience is because experience confirms the existence of God.>>

This makes no sense. Experience confirms the existence of each of us (actually, philosophically speaking, even that’s debatable, but we won’t go there), but that doesn't mean we’re somehow “higher” than experience.

So, it appears that I have indeed understood everything you have said. You are engaging in the same reasoning that just about every Christian does to justify their belief, including myself when I was a Christian. Nothing you’re saying is new to me.

At the risk of sounding condescending, it is not that I haven’t been understanding what you’ve been saying, but that I have come to understand that there are some fundamental errors in the reasoning you are engaging in, and that many of your assumptions cannot be justified. There are even some Christians who understand that your arguments do not work and will, therefore, avoid them and engage in what is known as 'sophisticated theology'. Just read some of Peter Sellick's articles, for example. Yuyutsu goes as far as to say that God doesn't even exist.