 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > How serious is it [Beyond the Bounds]? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 3/16/2004 10:18 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
Chris, what do you think of his Kalam Cosmological argument? There's something about it I don't quite buy into but I've not thought it through yet.
Laika, check out this thread for a discussion we had about a year ago.
www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1808
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 3/16/2004 2:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Alan Rhoda
quote:
Originally posted by Laika
Chris, what do you think of his Kalam Cosmological argument? There's something about it I don't quite buy into but I've not thought it through yet.
Laika, check out this thread for a discussion we had about a year ago.
www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1808
God bless,
Alan
Kuhl, thanks. This is what bothered me about KCA and you answered it at the same time:
quote:
Alan: I think the idea of a beginningless sequence is conceivable (i.e., logically possible) but not instantiable (i.e., metaphysically possible). Here's a beginningless sequence: ..., -3, -2, -1, 0. A beginningless sequence is conceivable, however, only as a potential infinite--we can keep moving further and further back in the sequence, while always remaining a finite distance from our starting point. Instantiation of a beginningless sequence results in an actual infinite because ALL of the prior events have to be in place in order for the current event in the sequence to be where it is. And this means that, somehow, this actually infinite set must have been actually traversed in stepwise fashion through each member of the sequence. The problem with instantiation of an actually infinite sequence is that it generates lots of nasty paradoxes. And these paradoxes aren't just problems for our imagination, they amount to logical contradictions--like saying that something that cannot be traversed has been traversed.
Infidels has a collection of responses to KCA and other theistic arguments:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/cosmological.html
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/17/2004 6:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris: I am curious: you make a statement about how Mormon scholars and philsophers and how they don't always agree with the leaders who run the church. This, would seem to me, to be problematic for those who wish to understand what the Mormon church actually believe. It sounds as if what you are saying is that Craig should be aware of this. But that gives rise to the question: if a person were interested in joining your church, who would be the authority to go to to learn what Mormons believe, scholars or church leaders?
I guess what I am asking is, why would Craig go to Mormon scholars when the Mormon church has leaders who articulate their doctrine? Isn't that what leaders of the church are for?
Who do you feel speaks for the Mormon church? Is it the leaders? Or individual scholars? Or just the individual members? Who would you say forms the doctrine that Mormon's believe? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 3/17/2004 10:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Chris: I am curious: you make a statement about how Mormon scholars and philsophers and how they don't always agree with the leaders who run the church. This, would seem to me, to be problematic for those who wish to understand what the Mormon church actually believe. It sounds as if what you are saying is that Craig should be aware of this. But that gives rise to the question: if a person were interested in joining your church, who would be the authority to go to to learn what Mormons believe, scholars or church leaders?
I guess what I am asking is, why would Craig go to Mormon scholars when the Mormon church has leaders who articulate their doctrine? Isn't that what leaders of the church are for?
Who do you feel speaks for the Mormon church? Is it the leaders? Or individual scholars? Or just the individual members? Who would you say forms the doctrine that Mormon's believe?
Thanks for the questions. I think it is, and should be, church leaders and not philosophers and theologians who should be viewed as authoritative when it comes to Mormon doctrine. There is a bigger difference between these two groups in Mormonism than in other denominations because Mormon church leaders don't receive any philosophical or theological training. (They don't attend divinity school.) Because of this fact, the statements by philosophers and theologians may be more precise and sophisticated than those by church leaders, and, in his defense, that may be why Craig decided to refer to the former rather than the latter.
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/17/2004 10:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris: thanks for the answer. I ask, partly, because I also find this question comes up in dialogue with Roman Catholics and as well Orthodox believers because they rely heavily on tradition for their teachings.
So, you believe that the leaders should be the ones to talk with authority, even though they have no background (usually I suppose) in theology. Do you see theologians and philsophers in your church as the ones who are more in the role of commentators?
Do past church leaders voices still have a prominent role (such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young)? If so, are there voices as scripture would be?
Finally, does the Mormon church have a book that states specifically what their church believe about God, salvation, etc.? Thanks... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 3/18/2004 5:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
I also find this question comes up in dialogue with Roman Catholics and as well Orthodox believers because they rely heavily on tradition for their teachings.
I would agree that Mormonism is similar to Roman Catholicism (and dissimilar from Evangelical Protestantism) in the authority it gives to certain extrabiblical sources.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Do you see theologians and philsophers in your church as the ones who are more in the role of commentators?
I'm not sure what I see their proper role as. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single instance when Mormon philosophers have enriched my understanding of Mormonism (or Christianity in general).
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Do past church leaders voices still have a prominent role (such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young)? If so, are there voices as scripture would be?
The words of past church leaders still play a very prominent role. I would say that, in general, their statements are considered non-canonical--we don't consider them to have been infallible--but somewhat akin to scripture in the level of divine inspiration generally assumed to be behind them. Since they're not around to explain themselves, harmonizing apparently inconsistent statements can sometimes be at least as much work as harmonizing apparently inconsistent statements in the Bible. Both opponents and supporters of Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge, for example, claim to find support in the recorded words of Brigham Young. And progressive revelation, through which divine truths gradually come to light over a period of time, is a major theme of Mormonism, and it is for that reason that it is reasonable to give emphasis to the recent statements by church leaders when interpreting Mormon doctrine.
quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Finally, does the Mormon church have a book that states specifically what their church believe about God, salvation, etc.?
I ought to have a good answer to that, but I don't know that I do. The information on the church's website "www.lds.org" can, with allowance for occasional oversights, be considered to reflect the church's official position. Within that website, "www.mormon.org" has an introduction to Mormonism that doesn't go into much detail and may be, therefore, unsatisfying to you. The "gospel library" link on the main lds.org page takes you to electronic versions of the church's current publications. Among them, Gospel Principles states basic Mormon doctrine in very basic language, while the various volumes of Teachings of Presidents of the Church are a little more meaty. Archives of the last 30+ years of semiannual worldwide church conferences are online, and many of the statements I've collected on foreknowledge come from there.
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 3/18/2004 12:02 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 3/24/2004 4:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc: I didn't read this thread, so take this for what little its worth. But I take every critique of something I believe seriously, for I could be wrong. The trouble with Beyond the Bounds is that all its criticisms, except one, have been raised and addressed many times before. (The one that hasn't been addressed yet concerns ancient Rabbi's views of foreknowledge).
John
Is there a response to this issue elsewhere on the net or in another publication elsewhere?
How seriousy are we to take the rabbis as general rule?
Is a response planned?
Is a response necessary?
Just wondering. I am having trouble sleeping. Nothing like a little ancient rabbinic reading for that
John | | Back to Top | | |
| 35 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:54 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|