I'll stick with the scholarly view. — frank
The notion that the priests who wrote down the stories knowingly recorded conflicting conceptions of their own divinity is absurd. — frank
When the stories were compiled does not tell us when, where, and by whom the stories were first told. — Fooloso4
Not at all. You seem to have missed the point. "Their own divinity" was the result of the joining of beliefs and practices of different groups. The twelve tribes of Israel, the families of the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel, did not settle together in one place as one united group. The theme of the reuniting of the tribes is a familiar one in the Hebrew Bible. The uniting of the peoples of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel required the stories of each group be represented. This is why we see the two stories of the Flood with their different details woven together. This is laid out clearly by Richard Friedman (a well regarded Biblical scholar) in "Who Wrote the Bible". — Fooloso4
So, putting it another way let's say that when it comes to believing 'x', the alternative is to believe 'not-x'. There is no third alternative when it comes to believing. — Janus
But there is an alternative to believing either 'x' or 'not-x' and that is to believe neither 'x' nor 'not-x'. If this sounds like you are still believing something, it is a false impression brought about by the way it is expressed 'I believe neither 'x' nor 'not-x'', but you are not believing anything. It is like saying 'I ate neither cheese nor fruit'; you are not eating anything that is cheese or fruit, nor necessarily anything else either. — Janus
but you are not believing anything. — Janus
The example concerning Trump colluding I gave earlier explains this clearly, I think. I don't have any belief either way as to whether Trump colluded, because I don't have sufficient evidence to hold a belief either way. I hope that clears it up for you. — Janus
It is a matter of felling, not of propositional ideas — Janus
When you say, “I don’t know,” you are avoiding belief. Right? — Noah Te Stroete
All I can say is that one can experience things that do not seem natural. Interpretation of these experiences (such as thinking that people were drugging me) do not rise to the requirements of knowledge, but one can feel wonder or awe or Oneness while withholding judgment as to what the cause is. — Noah Te Stroete
Thank you for your consideration. — Noah Te Stroete
So polite :grin: I will try to emulate the behavior, but I often get caught up in the argument and forget there is another human involved. — ZhouBoTong
Nope. I answer "I don't know" to knowledge questions. I answer "I don't think so" or "I don't believe so" to thought/opinion questions (to be fair, in a normal conversation 'think' and 'know' are interchangeable. But we are talking about belief in a philosophical setting and we get the added buffer of typing our responses so I can be extra careful about EXACTLY what I mean.) — ZhouBoTong
which is analogous to a previous statement,(6) Therefore God’s nature is good neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of goodness.
So, the theist tries to split the horns of the dilemma by saying that God is necessarily good, and that the source and standard of the Good is God’s very nature.
(5) So, by (1), (3) & (4), it follows that God has the same moral character in every possible world.
God is good. And that goodness is by His nature. And He always acts in accordance with that nature. Therefore, when He sets down laws one assumes they must be directed towards that goodness. Why then would He not obey such laws? If God's standard of goodness is His own nature, by not abiding by them, He is showing that, either His laws aren't divine or He just overestimated himself beyond His true capabilities.
Now, supposing those laws are for humans to follow but not God, how are we supposed to learn the value of those laws or of the goodness in them when God doesn't seem too concerned to abide by them?
My point is, it seems we (humans) value humanity more than God does. — BrianW
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.