³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Could you not have a section on the main news page called "positive news":-) Should I get depressed reading about all the bad stuff happening in the world I'm only a click away to see what good is going on around us. Keeps it all in perspective. What do you think?

Page 13 The Times July 13, 2007 reports today:

Child, 4, was beaten to death at family home. A four-year old girl died after suffering sustained and systematic abuse that left her with injuries similar to those of a victim of a traffic accident. When ambulance staff arrived Leticia was naked and lifeless on the floor. Her body was covered in bruises that suggested repeated punches or kicks. the back of her head was 'like a boggy mass'.

Jesus was reported in Matthew and Mark's gospels to have said:

Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

This is on my mind today.

Regards,
Michael

I believe the world is heading towards a very major war between various militant factions of the Islamic world and other parts of the world, especially the US, the UK, and Israel. The potential consequences are alarming and it is possible nobody anywhere will escape severe consequences of such a war. The world as we know it now may not survive much longer.

On my mind today:

An event tonight connected with my job that I'm going to try and get out of .... a charity golf tournament tomorrow played with baseball bats (I suck, and I tend to warn people of that ahead of time so they don't expect anything but failure) .... and a closed, trial webcast tomorrow night as part of an experiment by a company investing in internet radio, involving a certain well-known UK radio presenter who's invited me to take part tomorrow: the kind of thing that could lead to some interesting opportunities (and if I told you any more I'd have to kill you).

Also, today on my mind, to give in and get an iPhone or to wait until a 2nd generation version sometime next year? (I'm leaning toward the latter.)

Finally, is "Agnostic Christian" a good way to continue to describe my faith?

...in relation to the plea for positive news above, well done with Helping Hands on Radio Ulster recently Will, a type of "profiles of hope" you might say.

perhaps we could have a taste of that from time to time on the blog?

cheers
PB

i like your happiness bolg kemp, keep up the good work.

i have been thinking about whether or not god already knows everything, i saw this film called "simon birch" and it fryed my head.

does god know how many comments there will be on this thread?

I liked the Helping Hands series too Will but I also want debate, not just interveiws and profiles. Which is why i come to this blog, I hear debates about very important issues. PBs idea that you should do the helping hands kind of thing here - nah. Pb would turn you into an evangelistic tract if he could get away with it.

Pursuant to comment #2 dealing with God's omniscience, let me ask about his omnipotence: can God create a rock so big he can't move it?

hi john

do paradoxes like the one you just quoted above every cause you to think about the usefulness of rational though?

in the above the problem is with the language, this sentence is self referential. we are defining the rock in terms of itself, to me this seems to be a problem in lodgic not theology. here is a classic example of a self referential sentence...

THIS SENTENCE IS FALSE

this sentence cannot be true or false. i dont know much about philosophy but i once read that bertrand russell tried to build a new lodgic to deal with things like this. however he had to rule out so much "language" that the theory imploded on itself.

do paradoxes like these ever make you question the wisdom of using rational thought as a compass?

good luck in the golf.

I'm reading "The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture" and I'm struck by the point Shane Hipps makes about the apology Christians often give to their friends ...

"If you want to know what Christianity is really about, don't look at Christians. They're messed up like everybody else. Instead, you should look to the Bible and Jesus."

It really isn't good enough if individual Christians aren't somehow transformed by their faith and striving to reflect (allbeit imperfectly) the pattern and character and example of Jesus. Particularly if people are "God's chosen medium to be (not just to proclaim) a message of healing and hope to the world".

John: paradox of te stone. Old chestnut. But it's already been resolved by philosophers. God CANNOT make a stone so heavy that he couldnt lift it. That's no limitation on God, it's just the language involved implies incoherence.

"We mortals, men and women, devour many a disappointment between breakfast and dinner-time; keep back the tears and look a little pale about the lips, and in answer to inquiries say, ‘Oh, nothing!’ Pride helps us; and pride is not a bad thing when it only urges us to hide our own hurts – not to hurt others."

My favourite quote in literature from my favourite book 'Middlemarch' by George Eliot.

Guys Guys, I suspect that John Wright knows quite clearly that the statement has been resolved by philosophers. I dont think he meant it as a serious question.

To am- why on earth would it make you question the wisdom of rational thought. Rational thought exists to iron out these paradoxes. Without rational thought you wouldnt be able to understand that the staement is false. Can you please tell me why that makes you want to abandon rational thought!

Hi Joe

I dont want to abandon rational thought, definitly not.

But i think that it has become to some people a means of "knowing".

in the above i mentioned the liar paradox, it is over 200 years old and still, as far as i can see, unresolved.

Lodgic is currently a very broken machine, on johns blog it seems that he is happy to go to work with it and i am interested in why?

Joe- Thanks for your common sense.

am- I'm not sure whether you meant to say 'rationale' or 'rationality' but I'm entirely convinced about the usefulness of rationality and believe this statement to be a statement relying upon rationality for its coherence and ability to convey any meaning whatsoever. As you said, the paradox is a question of 'language' and not a question of rationality and its usefulness.

john

"As you said, the paradox is a question of 'language' and not a question of rationality and its usefulness."

Im not sure i follow you here. how will you reason if not with some type of language?

i agree that common sense lodgic is useful in the day to day stuff, like buying a pint of milk. im just saying that if we try to veiw the world through the lens of lodgic it may not give us good answers to the questions of polotics/theology/philosophy ect...

why is a rational answer the right one?

im not tring to be a smart arse im just interested to hear what you think, im not sure what i think im learning a bit about this at the moment and im finding it quite interesting.

am- I can see what you are getting at, however I think you are on quite a slippery slope. Your almost in a position of absolute scepticism! Why is a rational answer the right one, why is any answer a right one! If one starts going down this road, you actually get nowhere! I mean why is logic ok for buying a pint of milk and not ok for discussing the possibility of a divine deity? Im not sure I understand why a distinction should be made? And what do you mean by "good" answers?

am- You're asking the right questions. Rational thought about the big questions of life is an extrapolation of the fact that logic yields the right answer to mathematical questions like 1 + 1 = 2. If that's true (and relies upon logic for its truthfulness) then logic -rationality- can also be relied upon to answer bigger questions too.

Johnwright- thats almost exactly what I was trying to say in my last post but didnt make a good job of it!!!Well said!

Hi John,

Thanks for you reply, im not sure that all lodgic is an extrapolation of mathematical lodgic.

such lodgical paradoxes exist even in mathematics, for example some people are not sure even about simple things like 1+1=2. and even if the lodgic of mathematics can be made coherent, why is the extrapolation of mathematical lodgic the right lodgic to answer other questions with?

it seems to me that your dessision to use lodgic is based on "common sense", but mabey if you grew up in india common sense would be something else, why do you belive in lodgic?

Anonymous (aka am?)- I'm not really sure you've thought this through. You are using logic right now to assess the issue you wish to discuss! You oughtta read some Descartes, starting with 'Cogito ergo sum' and moving on from there, constructing not by perception but by deduction in what manner we can deduce that certain judgments are the case. But why not rely on the work he and other philosophers have already done and trust reason above all else, if not on the basis that you have deduced it, step-by-step to be trustworthy then at least on the basis that it yields predictable, reliable results every time?

hi john

sorry that was me above, i realize there is a certian irony in this argument as i am trying to show that it itself is in some sense meaningless.

however whichever western philosopher i chose lodgic still has massive holes in it, i think i understand your position by the statement

"at least on the basis that it yields predictable, reliable results every time?"

but do these paradoxes not show how unreliable/unpredicting common sense lodgic is?

am- My contention is that no, there is no deficiency in logic and the reason of man's mind, certainly not with regard to any of the things we currently need to think about. As someone else pointed out above, the paradoxes are quite resolvable. We can trust reason where we can't trust the senses, or mysticism, or anything else that doesn't rely on reason.

I recently read a fascinating article linked on the Institute for Humanist Studies website, and which calls our attention to the inappropriate involvement of Christian fundamentalists in setting the agenda of a major Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in San Diego.

I would appreciate it if you could forward the link to Michael Baigent, I believe he will be interested in the article.