Questioning christianity's originality

[eight bits]

Tiggs

"Why is the sky blue?" and "How is the sky blue?" are both the same question, but one presupposes a Designer.

Yours is a nice example of "Natural language is robust and fault-tolerant. I can sometimes ask why when I seek factual information ... or how when I seek worth information ..."

Many people would see the two versions as the same question. Although I disagree that the why version leads (presupposes its answer), we seem to be in agreement that the two versions seek different information.

So, describing two questions that seek distinct information as "both the same question" is also a nice example of natural langauge being robust and fault tolerant .

[Tiggs]

Many people would see the two versions as the same question. Although I disagree that the why version leads (presupposes its answer), we seem to be in agreement that the two versions seek different information.

In general, with questions concerning Natural phenomenon, I think that "Why" type questions imply purpose and/or design and so ultimately seek the answer "Because the Designer wills it to be so".

[AzTide]

No its not. You need to check history of hisotry.

I have checked many parts of History and the Bible... Actually you have yet to present evidence of real accredited historians that agree with your point.. Even Christian Churches don't agree with you...

I will give you this.. http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/bible-study-bible-really-history

Modern Biblical scholarship has often challenged the historicity of Scriptures. This, in turn, affects the way in which the Bible is treated in education - especially public education. While history is an accepted subject for study, the Bible is considered other than history, and not fit for study as actual history. Sometimes teachers even ridicule students who accept the Bible as history.

Many people who think that they are experts have begun to say that the Bible doesn't report history in a way we should consider it "real" history today. As a result, not only public education, but also many in the church reject the Bible as responsible history. There are pockets of resistance where the Scriptures are really studies, and if you belong in a church where you really study, praise God.

But in many places the study of Scripture has given way to the manipulation of Scripture. People forget about the history, the heroes, the events that many have studied as children. Instead, they begin to read a verse here, a verse there, trying to find the "true," the "spiritual" meaning of the Bible.

There is a connection between much of the modern church's rejection of the Bible as history and the ridicule of Bible-believing students by some public educators. Those who are hostile to Christianity are often heard to say, "You believe what the Bible says about creation? Even the churches don't believe that!" So, let's ask Scripture itself whether it is history.

The Bible never uses the word "history", according to Young's Analytical Concordance (for the King James Version), and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (for the New American Standard Bible). The word may be absent, but the concept is not. The Bible uses words such as "record", "chronicle", and "account" instead. They mean to indicate the same thing as we mean by "history".

[eight bits]

Tiggs

In general, with questions concerning Natural phenomenon, I think that "Why" type questions imply purpose and/or design and so ultimately seek the answer "Because the Designer wills it to be so".

I see a greater diversity in possible evaluators than you do. The original remark that precipitated this line of discussion,

Im thinking on science that they trys to answer question How not Why. Why is for religion and philosophy.

cast a wider net than creator-theistic religions, wider than religions, period. Even those religions that do feature a designing creator might allow some natural phenomena to be influenced by other beings' sense of worth.

Example Q. Why are there almost-human primate fossils? A. The devil made them to deceive us.

[tito48]

zeitgeist refuted. watch it

[Tiggs]

I see a greater diversity in possible evaluators than you do.

I think if you keep digging down into "Why" long enough, you'll eventually get to the demiurge.

Example Q. Why are there almost-human primate fossils? A. The devil made them to deceive us.

Q: Why did the devil deceive us? A: Because God willed it to be so.

[texaskat]

I'm a Christian *not a fanantic) still learning a lot of things, one reason I love ancient history so much. I beleive Jesus existed, not just because of Christian teachings but from history I have read. I have a neurological problem and cannot remember where I read what at times so I cannot tell you where to look. The Bible is a great history book as well as Bible for Christians. Science has found lots of things to be where they were told they would be in the Bible.

Cecil B. DeMile was a great director but even he had to put a lot of Hollywood pizzaz in his movies. It was a while before I knew about that and believed his account of things to be accuate. Even so the movies were a great learning experience for non Christians as well as Christians.

Forgive me, my mind sometimes goes in too many directions at once. Not crazy just have some misfires in my brain at times.

texaskat

[eight bits]

Tiggs

Q: Why did the devil deceive us? A: Because God willed it to be so.

Yes, both how and why questions can be chained indefinitely. The only possibility for the conversation with a persistent questionner to end is for the informant to state a closer. It is possible that an informant might have a preferred closer, like the frustrated secular parent's "Because that's just the way it is."

As I've said many times in many contexts, insh'allah is not an explanation, but an announcement that no explanation is forthcoming. It is a closer.

It does not follow that the go-to closer is unique within a belief system. Continuing the fossil example, the devil is an autonomous agent in some belief systems. The base reason may not be that God wills it, but rather that God tolerates it to be so. Compare the Hebrews' decision to have a king. That is a difference that justifies a question to decide.

And, of course, depending on the context, the question might not have been part of a quest for an ultimate cause in the first place, but rather an inquiry into a more proximate cause. That is, the information actually sought may have been about the devil's thinking, not any ultimate rulership. The sincere inquirer, rather than an exasperated informant, might end the chain without the need for a closer reply.

[Beckys_Mom]

. You need to check history of hisotry.

Check history of history?.... Where to begin eh?

I am just pulling your leg lol

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Four people record life on one person is called history.

You might only argue is it true what they wrote. Did all four people lied? I

Many time not so clever people think for example that Herodotus was a bad historian because he written down believes of ancient people. Its history of many mysteries, myths, fantasy beings like werevolves, giants and so on. Herodotus was genius because one needs to wrote down all because we need to understand beliefs of ancient people if we want to understand them and theirs/us history.

Herodotus wanted to understand Greek Persian wars so he start writting. Livy wrote Roman history and myth about brothers fe by wolf. Many historians dont think thats true story. Not true=Not important. You see those historians are bad historians like bad cops, bad doctors. Everything is important. How they dress, what they ate, what they believe?

I can quote you many historians in purpose that you understand what is history book.

You see I asume your 1st language is english. In english you have two words "history" and "story" but in French which is I think language id far richer (imo-no offence) then English they have only one word for "history" and "story" - histoire.

Historians trough history didnt wrote as todays historians wrote. History is science and therefore self correcting.

Or you can say different about history is inquiry so that we have history and historiography.

Check history of history?.... Where to begin eh?

I am just pulling your leg lol

Start with Herodotus.

[Tiggs]

Yes, both how and why questions can be chained indefinitely. The only possibility for the conversation with a persistent questionner to end is for the informant to state a closer. It is possible that an informant might have a preferred closer, like the frustrated secular parent's "Because that's just the way it is."

Agreed. The point I'm making, however, is that a "Why" closer is always some form of "Because the creator wishes it to be so", while the "How" closer is always some form of "Don't know".

As I've said many times in many contexts, insh'allah is not an explanation, but an announcement that no explanation is forthcoming. It is a closer.

It does not follow that the go-to closer is unique within a belief system. Continuing the fossil example, the devil is an autonomous agent in some belief systems. The base reason may not be that God wills it, but rather that God tolerates it to be so. Compare the Hebrews' decision to have a king. That is a difference that justifies a question to decide.

For the purposes of this discussion - I see no practical difference between God tolerating something as opposed to wishing something.

If God wished it otherwise - then it would be otherwise.

And, of course, depending on the context, the question might not have been part of a quest for an ultimate cause in the first place, but rather an inquiry into a more proximate cause. That is, the information actually sought may have been about the devil's thinking, not any ultimate rulership. The sincere inquirer, rather than an exasperated informant, might end the chain without the need for a closer reply.

Regardless of depth of inquiry, I believe that "Why" can always be adequately replaced with "For what purpose"

Edited July 12, 2012 by Tiggs

[eight bits]

Tiggs

Let's try this, then. If the informant believes in an omnipotent and unconstrained God, then a reason for anything is ultimately that God wills it. The questioner might be interested in something more proximate, but nevertheless, "God wills it," despite being a closer rather than an explanation, will be a believed and responsive answer to any why-question for that informant.

On the other hand, most of the people I deal with believe that God is constrained.:In their view, he is subject to logical consistency, he can bind himself to keep his word (freely, but once having done so, he is no longer free to violate his word), he can resolve to behave in certain ways without being bound (especially, to accommodate the free will of his creatures), ... and so on. "God wills it" is not always what this kind of informant believes.

Now, obviously, if the person asking a why-question doesn't care whether God is allowing something, respecting a promise, or exercising his unfettered discretion, then none of those things are the information sought. But that's not an inherent feature of the question. Somebody else asking what is formally the same question may be interested in just that sort of distinction.

Thee versus me, for instance, apparently.

Anyway, returning to what started this line of inquiry, somebody saying that Jones is looking at how-questions while Smith is looking at why-questions is saying something substantive about a difference between Smith and Jones. That difference is worthy of remark, IMO, whether or not Smith displays much variety in what she comes up with in the way of why-answers.

[Tiggs]

Tiggs

Let's try this, then. If the informant believes in an omnipotent and unconstrained God, then a reason for anything is ultimately that God wills it. The questioner might be interested in something more proximate, but nevertheless, "God wills it," despite being a closer rather than an explanation, will be a believed and responsive answer to any why-question for that informant.

On the other hand, most of the people I deal with believe that God is constrained.:In their view, he is subject to logical consistency, he can bind himself to keep his word (freely, but once having done so, he is no longer free to violate his word), he can resolve to behave in certain ways without being bound (especially, to accommodate the free will of his creatures), ... and so on. "God wills it" is not always what this kind of informant believes.

Now, obviously, if the person asking a why-question doesn't care whether God is allowing something, respecting a promise, or exercising his unfettered discretion, then none of those things are the information sought. But that's not an inherent feature of the question. Somebody else asking what is formally the same question may be interested in just that sort of distinction.

Thee versus me, for instance, apparently.

Why implies Purpose implies Designer.

How a Designer has arrived at a particular decision to give (or allow) something that purpose is a detail that will differ from religious group to religious group.

That we have a Designer involved somewhere in the decision-making process is sufficient, for my current purposes.

Anyway, returning to what started this line of inquiry, somebody saying that Jones is looking at how-questions while Smith is looking at why-questions is saying something substantive about a difference between Smith and Jones. That difference is worthy of remark, IMO, whether or not Smith displays much variety in what she comes up with in the way of why-answers.

I agree. My claim is that Why-questions imply purpose imply designer.

Hence, it's my belief that asking "why is the sky blue", "For what purpose is the sky blue" and "for what purpose did the designer make the sky blue" are just different length versions of the same question.

Or - since we're returning to the beginning - Religion answers Why Questions, Science answers How Questions.

Obviously - from my point of view - very few Why questions are valid, at all.

[Sensible Logic]

How do you know God isn't a non-interventionist? It would seem based on evidence that if God exists, he is one.

You must be referring to evidence outside the bible because the bible clearly shows him/her as an interventionist.

[eight bits]

Tiggs

Or - since we're returning to the beginning - Religion answers Why Questions, Science answers How Questions.

And so, on the point actually raised, you and I agree that the poster raised the point properly.

Even though we look at it from distinct perspectives (just guessing, but that poster may well see aspects of this differently than either of us), nevertheless a Kumbaya moment descends upon us.

Alleluia.

[AzTide]

Four people record life on one person is called history.

You might only argue is it true what they wrote. Did all four people lied? I

Many time not so clever people think for example that Herodotus was a bad historian because he written down believes of ancient people. Its history of many mysteries, myths, fantasy beings like werevolves, giants and so on. Herodotus was genius because one needs to wrote down all because we need to understand beliefs of ancient people if we want to understand them and theirs/us history.

Herodotus wanted to understand Greek Persian wars so he start writting. Livy wrote Roman history and myth about brothers fe by wolf. Many historians dont think thats true story. Not true=Not important. You see those historians are bad historians like bad cops, bad doctors. Everything is important. How they dress, what they ate, what they believe?

I can quote you many historians in purpose that you understand what is history book.

You see I asume your 1st language is english. In english you have two words "history" and "story" but in French which is I think language id far richer (imo-no offence) then English they have only one word for "history" and "story" - histoire.

Historians trough history didnt wrote as todays historians wrote. History is science and therefore self correcting.

Or you can say different about history is inquiry so that we have history and historiography.

Start with Herodotus.

But there is a difference between using facts which is history. And making stuff up which is Fiction.....

[Ever Learning]

I'll just leave this here.

"Arguing with a religious person is like playing chess with a pigeon, you can be the greatest player in the world but he'll still knock over all the pieces, **** on the board and strut around triumphantly."

I'll just leave this here.

"Arguing with a religious person is like playing chess with a pigeon, you can be the greatest player in the world but he'll still knock over all the pieces, **** on the board and strut around triumphantly."

[Big Bad Voodoo]

But there is a difference between using facts which is history. And making stuff up which is Fiction.....

You need to understand that unless one go back in time he would never understood history completly.

How do you know what happens in history?

[CloudSix]

Oh my God( ) 12 pages!!!

I'm so proud

My first thread with 12 pages