Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-18 Thread Tom Caylor
1Z wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: One thing Schaeffer did was remind us that the assumptions of nature and cause were foundational to modern science. More prevalent on the Christian Right is the Dominionist idea, shared by Reconstructionists, that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-16 Thread 1Z
Tom Caylor wrote: One thing Schaeffer did was remind us that the assumptions of nature and cause were foundational to modern science. More prevalent on the Christian Right is the Dominionist idea, shared by Reconstructionists, that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-14 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom, The question I am interested in is not whether it would be a *good thing* for a personal God to exist, but whether it is *the case* that a personal God exists. There are all sorts of things that people would like to be true, but that does not make them

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-09 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 04-déc.-06, à 08:34, Tom Caylor wrote : The existence of a personal God who is not silent answers the questions in a way that an impersonal god or reality does not... I certainly have a methodological problem with such an idea. This is due to my motivation in the

RE: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 15:33:10 -0800 Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 04-déc.-06, à 08:34, Tom Caylor wrote : The existence of a personal God

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-09 Thread Brent Meeker
evil, but a mixture - which is the way it seems to be. Brent Meeker From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 15:33:10 -0800 Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 04

RE: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Brent meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom, The question I am interested in is not whether it would be a *good thing* for a personal God to exist, but whether it is *the case* that a personal God exists. There are all sorts of things that people would like to be

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-09 Thread George Levy
Brent meeker writes: It could be argued that not even God could create a world in which there are no accidents, conflicts of interest, disappointments, and so on, at least not without severely limiting his creatures' freedom. However, it would have been possible for God to limit the

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-09 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent meeker writes: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom, The question I am interested in is not whether it would be a *good thing* for a personal God to exist, but whether it is *the case* that a personal God exists. There are all sorts of things that

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 04-déc.-06, à 23:41, Brent Meeker a écrit : All the theologians I know of (except maybe Bruno who has his own definition of theology) hold that God provides all meaning - in fact many regard that as a kind of proof of the existence of God: If God doesn't exist our lives will have

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-05 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: OK. I'll take the belief out of it for your convenience. 1) If the infinite personal God of love exists this makes it possible for me to take my eyes off of myself, by looking at God (granted that such a thing is allowed). (not done yet) 2)

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-05 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 04-déc.-06, à 23:41, Brent Meeker a écrit : All the theologians I know of (except maybe Bruno who has his own definition of theology) hold that God provides all meaning - in fact many regard that as a kind of proof of the existence of God:

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-05 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: (Schaeffer's phrase Is Not Silent is an answer to Wittengenstein's famous quote.) Sorry, Wittgenstein. I must have had Witten on the brane ;) Regarding Bruno's use of the word 'theology', I agree with Brent that it is unconventional to the point of targeting the wrong

RE: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Cayolor writes: Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not being there). The existence of the personal God

RE: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: I agree (with the proviso that I suppose that by machine you talk about the old pregodelian conception of (non universal) machine. We don't know what universal machine are capable of, and I don't see why a present God would abandon them. I hope you can harbor some

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 04-déc.-06, à 08:34, Tom Caylor wrote : The existence of a personal God who is not silent answers the questions in a way that an impersonal god or reality does not... I certainly have a methodological problem with such an idea. This is due to my motivation in the subject. I am

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Cayolor writes: Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not being there). The

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: I agree (with the proviso that I suppose that by machine you talk about the old pregodelian conception of (non universal) machine. We don't know what universal machine are capable of, and I don't see why a present God would abandon them.

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Cayolor writes: Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not being there).

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Cayolor writes: Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Brent Meeker
Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Cayolor writes: Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis is reality itself, based on the God who is

RE: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: As I've mentioned in my other more recent posts, I'm talking about our different beliefs underlying the fact that we live as though there is a nature to reality, as though we have personal meaning and significance, that there is a why to our existence, not just a how

RE: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: Anyway, I don't see how you could deny you are a machine any more than you could deny a car is a machine. You are made up of tiny little components all working together smoothly, and if something breaks, you break. God could have made us solid like a potato

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-03 Thread Tom Caylor
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: One thing Schaeffer did was remind us that the assumptions of nature and cause were foundational to modern science. We have to assume that there is a nature to reality in order to study it and use our reason to make sense of it. Reality

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-03 Thread Tom Caylor
Brent Meeker wrote: Why should nothing be the default. Or to paraphase Quine, Nothing is what doesn't exist. So what is there? Everything. Everything that there is is there. But this is the ultimate in begging the question. The question remains, why is everything (I see) there? Why do I

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-03 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: Schaeffer maintained that the basis for antithesis is not that it was an invention of Aristotle or anyone, but that the basis for antithesis is reality itself, based on the God who is there (as opposed to not being there). I agree with this a priori. At this stage

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-12-01 Thread Tom Caylor
Sorry for my long reaction time. I have my thoughts on Bruno's, Stathis' and Brent Meekers' posts, but I will not be able to post until this weekend. Tom --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 29-nov.-06, à 05:57, Tom Caylor a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 24-nov.-06, à 10:03, Tom Caylor a écrit : Have you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy of books: The God Who Is There, Escape From Reason, and He Is There And He Is Not Silent. He talks about the consequences of the

RE: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-29 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Tom Caylor writes: Have you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy of books: The God Who Is There, Escape From Reason, and He Is There And He Is Not Silent. He talks about the consequences of the belief in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. There is no way that I can

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-29 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Tom Caylor writes: Have you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy of books: The God Who Is There, Escape From Reason, and He Is There And He Is Not Silent. He talks about the consequences of the belief in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system.

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-28 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 24-nov.-06, à 10:03, Tom Caylor a écrit : Have you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy of books: The God Who Is There, Escape From Reason, and He Is There And He Is Not Silent. He talks about the consequences of the belief in the uniformity of natural causes in a

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-28 Thread Tom Caylor
Tom Caylor wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 24-nov.-06, à 10:03, Tom Caylor a écrit : Have you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy of books: The God Who Is There, Escape From Reason, and He Is There And He Is Not Silent. He talks about the consequences of the belief in the uniformity of

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-25 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 24-nov.-06, à 10:03, Tom Caylor a écrit : Have you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy of books: The God Who Is There, Escape From Reason, and He Is There And He Is Not Silent. He talks about the consequences of the belief in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. No. But if

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-22 Thread Tom Caylor
Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 04:32:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 21-nov.-06, à 03:42, Tom Caylor a écrit : 1. What is the purpose of this 0-person? What role does it play? As soon as we say it has a purpose or role, we've just instantiated it. Why do

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-22 Thread Tom Caylor
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 21-nov.-06, à 03:42, Tom Caylor a écrit : 1. What is the purpose of this 0-person? What role does it play? As soon as we say it has a purpose or role, we've just instantiated it. Why do you (or Plotinus) think we need it? The 0-person is the big whole. It is

Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)

2006-11-22 Thread 1Z
Tom Caylor wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 04:32:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 21-nov.-06, à 03:42, Tom Caylor a écrit : 1. What is the purpose of this 0-person? What role does it play? As soon as we say it has a purpose or role, we've