Re: Seely's Views 2

From: <jwburgeson@juno.com>
Date: Tue Sep 07 2004 - 12:03:20 EDT

Glenn wrote: "Why believe a given set of beliefs, say, A, B, c...
When one can't be sure if one is supposed to believe them or another
mutually exclusive or partially exclusive set of beliefs, A, D, E, K and
Z?"

Why does not my "inference to the best explanation" concept not answer
this, Glenn?

In the dialog so far you appear to be avoiding any direct comments on
this idea and continuing to use the word "sure."

George and Don have both responded with posts I can endorse on this
issue.

Glenn again: "Why should we expend such effort over something we simply
can't know."

Because it is of ultimate importance. Recall Pascal: "The heart has
reasons that reason cannot understand."

As a modern Christian, I worship Christ, and look to Him as being of
ultimate importance. Tillich worshipped "The ground of all being." I
thing that's the same thing. I am also unwilling to judge all Mormons
(or Muslims) as automatically outside the fold, for I don't know their
hearts. Their relationship to God is God's problem, not mine.

Glenn: "Maybe God tells me one thing and
George another and you a third?"

Could be. As a matter of fact, I rather think it MUST be. And it has 0
to do with "information theory."
jb
                                                                         
                www.burgy.50megs.com

________________________________________________________________
Get your name as your email address.
Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!
Received on Tue Sep 7 12:53:34 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 07 2004 - 12:53:35 EDT