Tom Caylor wrote:

I tried to address everything but ran out of time/energy.  If there is
something I deleted from a previous post that I cut out that you wanted
me to address, just bring it back up.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 26-d c.-06,   19:54, Tom Caylor a  crit :

> On Dec 26, 9:51 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Le 25-d c.-06,   01:13, Tom Caylor a  crit :
>> > The "crux" is that he is not symbolic...
>> I respect your belief or faith, but I want to be frank, I have no
>> evidences for the idea that "Jesus" is "truth", nor can I be sure of
>> any clear meaning such an assertion could have, or how such an
>> assertion could be made scientific, even dropping Popper falsification
>> criteria. I must say I have evidences on the contrary, if only the
>> fact
>> that humans succumb often to wishful thinking, and still more often to
>> their parents wishful thinking.
> If you are not sure of any clear meaning of the personal God being the
> source of everything, including of course truth, this entails not
> knowing the other things too.

Is that not an authoritative argument?
What if I ask to my student an exam question like give me an argument
why the square root of 3 is irrationnal. Suppose he gives me the
correct and convincing usual (mathematical) proof. I could give him a
bad note for not adding: "and I know that is the truth because truth is
a gift by God".
Cute, I can directly give bad notes to all my students, and this will
give me more time to find a falsity in your way to reason ...

Just to clear this up, my above statement was not meant to be an
argument. I purposefully used the word "entail" rather than "imply".  I
wasn't saying that you cannot believe in some kind of truth without
believing in the personal God.  However is makes sense *from my
perspective* (of belief in the personal God) that you do not have a
basis for any truth on which personhood can be based, which *from my
perspective* (which I *have* been arguing for in general) needs more
than the impersonal core.

The card records facts. To judge them historical is already beyond my
competence. Why the bible? Why not "the question of king Milinda" ?

My approach on the Everything List has been to argue for the necessity
of the personal God as the ultimate basis for Everything.  If someone
wants to research the historical record sufficiently to convince
themselves one way or another about the Bible or Jesus' resurrection,
that's great, and I can give them some sources, but it's probably too
contingent for this List.  But I do have response to your comment on
universal-ness below.

> My whole argument is that without it our hope eventually runs out and
> we are left with despair,

Speak for yourself.

unless we lie to ourselves against the
> absence of hope.

So are you lying to yourself because otherwise you would despair?

Here Stathis already give a genuine comment. You are just admitting
your argument is "wishful thinking".

I was being too poetic ;)  By "despair" I meant nihilism, the belief
that there ultimately is no meaning.  I am arguing that the ultimate
source of meaning has to be personal.  I'm just saything that my
argument is of the form, "If meaning is not ultimately based on the
personal God, then there is no true meaning, because..."

If meaning is personal, and I'm a person, then I create meaning. To postulate a personal God to supply "ultimate" personal meaning seems otiose. It's like the first-cause argument for God. If God can exist uncaused then why not stop the regress with an uncaused universe - which has the additional advantage of obviously existing.
Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to