The Divine Non-Contradiction Principle and Why it Fails-Refuted

[shunyadragon]

It seems as if you are perhaps confusing matters of Christian faith and philosophical thought. Do you not want to speak of theism in a philosophical sense?

No confusion on my part. My posts are specific and to the point, the theological Doctrine, Dogmas and Creeds which form the foundation of belief and define theism in 'traditional Christian churches. Your not responding to the posts. Your preference appears to address confusing vagueness of some underlying philosophical concepts.

[robrecht]

No confusion on my part. My posts are specific and to the point, the theological Doctrine, Dogmas and Creeds which form the foundation of belief and define theism in 'traditional Christian churches. Your not responding to the posts. Your preference appears to address confusing vagueness of some underlying philosophical concepts.

So that seems to be a 'no', ie, you do not want to speak of philosophical theism apart from creeds. Is that correct?

[Carrikature]

No problem, Doctrines and Dogmas could not be used to define UU. UU is a consensus belief system, based more on the collective of independent thinkers that associate in a faith. This is the polls of belief work well defining the foundation of UUs, because it shows what and why they believe as UU evolved over its history.

No. Polls can indicate what the majority of adherents currently believe. They can NOT be used to determine what is the foundation of a belief system.

[shunyadragon]

No. Polls can indicate what the majority of adherents currently believe. They can NOT be used to determine what is the foundation of a belief system.

Actually this is a contradiction. There are many UU polls, conducted by UUs that do exactly that, 'They indicate what the majority of the adherents of UU currently believe as described in the reference I gave.

In terms of UU where the belief system is based on the consensus of believers without specific doctrines and dogmas as in traditional Christian theism this is the best way.

If you disagree, bell the cat, explain how you would do this?

[shunyadragon]

So that seems to be a 'no', ie, you do not want to speak of philosophical theism apart from creeds. Is that correct?

If you wish to discuss the philosophical? basis theism concepts, please start a thread on this topic. The topic I am addressing is what are the foundation beliefs that define traditional Christian theism and what the majority of Christians believe define Christianity as clearly stated in the reference I cited. These foundation concepts are clearly defined in the Creeds which every adult Christian who are church believers ''MUST' commit to sincerely as absolutely necessary when they become members of the church.

If you wish to discuss the philosophical why? again start a thread and I will gladly participate.

[Doug Shaver]

The Doctrine and Dogma of the traditional Christian churches is basically set and unchangeable common set of required beliefs for salvation in the Apostles Creed

That is what some Christians believe. I was responding to a claim you made about theists. Is it so hard for you to distinguish between theism and Christianity?

[Carrikature]

Actually this is a contradiction. There are many UU polls, conducted by UUs that do exactly that, 'They indicate what the majority of the adherents of UU currently believe as described in the reference I gave.

In terms of UU where the belief system is based on the consensus of believers without specific doctrines and dogmas as in traditional Christian theism this is the best way.

If you disagree, bell the cat, explain how you would do this?

There is no contradiction. You have claimed (but not shown) that the UU belief system is based on a consensus of believers. I see no reason to accept this, and it lies in direct conflict with what the UUA says about itself. The UUA specifically states the seven principles that are at the heart of the belief system. The origin story I have linked to previously.

The predominance or acceptance of certain beliefs may change. This is different from those beliefs relying upon a consensus of believers. This is also different from the beliefs set into the foundation of the belief system. You continue to conflate these three things, and it is there that your error lies.

[robrecht]

If you wish to discuss the philosophical? basis theism concepts, please start a thread on this topic. The topic I am addressing is what are the foundation beliefs that define traditional Christian theism and what the majority of Christians believe define Christianity as clearly stated in the reference I cited. These foundation concepts are clearly defined in the Creeds which every adult Christian who are church believers ''MUST' commit to sincerely as absolutely necessary when they become members of the church.

If you wish to discuss the philosophical why? again start a thread and I will gladly participate.

Before I abandon this philosophical thread, I would still like to understand why this discussion has changed from a philosophical one to a specific religious discussion. This seems to have come about for a few potential and successive reasons: 1) your view that atheism is a belief, 2) your introduction of Baha'i Faith cosmogony, 3) your introduction of the foundational beliefs of Unitarian Universalist religion or movement, and finally, 4) your desire to further limit the previous discussion of theism to Christian theism. Is this really a rationale or straighforward course for a philosophical discussion to take or are there perhaps other reasons for your desire to move the discussion in this particular direction? I have my own hypothesis, but I would prefer to hear your own explanation first, if you please.

[shunyadragon]

That is what some Christians believe. I was responding to a claim you made about theists. Is it so hard for you to distinguish between theism and Christianity?

Not hard to differentiate at all, but I never referred to any other theists other then traditional Christian theists.

[robrecht]

Not hard to differentiate at all, but I never referred to any other theists other then traditional Christian theists.

Untrue. You did not begin to focus only on Christian thesists until after your view of theism brgan to be questioned:

So what's new? theists use premises in their argument that atheists don't accept.

Correct, I was just asked for 'some' of the assumptions theists make for their arguments for God that atheists do not make, and of course 'some' atheists make 'some' assumption that theists do not make.

Most Christians and Muslims assume our physical existence is temporal and finite. The Baha'i Faith cosmogony is the only theist view that believes in an infinite and eternal physical existence.

Pretty much all cosmological arguments from the Christian and Islamic perspective assume that our everything in our physical existence had a beginning, therefore the necessity of a Source outside our physical existence, ie God(s).

Assumptions in logical arguments, particularly in this instance cosmological arguments, are not the content of the belief. The assumptions of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas are not inferences, but assumptions of logical arguments to support the existence of God.

In all my contacts and affiliation with UUs since the 1960's the independent individual expression and search for truth and knowledge is an underlying principle of UU, and expressed in the Humanists Manifesto. This highly individual view of 'truth and knowledge is in it self a contrad'iction with Theism where the search for truth and knowedge is in a 'higher Divine power.

Yes, many in fact many people also believe that some knowledge, revelation and beliefs are individually discovered or revealed, but what unites theists is the fundamental belief in some unifying revelation from God through one or more mediators reveals knowledge that humans must believe in to be somehow saved.

Actually free thought and will has quite a range of beliefs in traditional theism. It is true that in almost all theistic religions limit the possible choices of valid free thought.

Degree and role of free thought is an important issue in humanism as differenciated from theism. Theism in one way or another discourages free thought.

Again, Traditional Judism is more more strongly rooted (anchored) culture and tradition, and not apophatic theology. In Judaism this not much of a concern to the average Jew.

[Doug Shaver]

Not hard to differentiate at all, but I never referred to any other theists other then traditional Christian theists.

If you intend to talk only about Christians, why don't you consistently call them Christians? Are you trying to be ambiguous?

[shunyadragon]

Before I abandon this philosophical thread, I would still like to understand why this discussion has changed from a philosophical one to a specific religious discussion. This seems to have come about for a few potential and successive reasons: 1) your view that atheism is a belief, 2) your introduction of Baha'i Faith cosmogony, 3) your introduction of the foundational beliefs of Unitarian Universalist religion or movement, and finally, 4) your desire to further limit the previous discussion of theism to Christian theism. Is this really a rationale or straighforward course for a philosophical discussion to take or are there perhaps other reasons for your desire to move the discussion in this particular direction? I have my own hypothesis, but I would prefer to hear your own explanation first, if you please.

This thread has become muddled. A lot of the above came about by a series of questions. As far as UU goes I started a thread in apologetics. I will start a thread soon on Genesis 2 the Fall and Original Sin there too.

[shunyadragon]

Untrue. You did not begin to focus only on Christian thesists until after your view of theism brgan to be questioned:

The thread has become muddled. As far as UU and it's issues concerning God(s) and theism I prefer the thread in Apologetics.

[robrecht]

If you intend to talk only about Christians, why don't you consistently call them Christians? Are you trying to be ambiguous?

This thread has become muddled. A lot of the above came about by a series of questions. As far as UU goes I started a thread in apologetics. I will start a thread soon on Genesis 2 the Fall and Original Sin there too.

The thread has become muddled. As far as UU and it's issues concerning God(s) and theism I prefer the thread in Apologetics.

I think this thread became muddled because of your desire to change a philosophical discussion of philosophical theism into your own critique of an overly limited view of Christian theism.

[shunyadragon]

I think this thread became muddled because of your desire to change a philosophical discussion of philosophical theism into your own critique of an overly limited view of Christian theism.

Simply passing the buck on baseless assertions is living in glass houses and throwing stones.