|
Anxiety
|
 |
« on: March 17, 2009, 12:46:55 AM » |
|
Deeper thoughts + Dangerous questions = DANGEROUS THOUGHTS. Oh no. The evil d[a]emon, sometimes referred to as the evil genius, is a concept in Cartesian philosophy. In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Ren? Descartes hypothesises the existence of an evil demon, a personification who is "as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me." The evil demon presents a complete illusion of an external world, including other people, to Descartes' senses, where in fact there is no such external world in existence. The evil genius also presents to Descartes' senses a complete illusion of his own body, including all bodily sensations, where in fact Descartes has no body. Most Cartesian scholars opine that the evil demon is also omnipotent, and thus capable of altering mathematics and the fundamentals of logic. Most of us reject Cartesian skepticism for the sake of our sanity, however, let's apply this to something a bit different. Let's presuppose that the world around us is true and not completely deceptive. But let's consider for a moment that there exist books that are completely deceptive and full of untruths. Now consider a deceiving Bible that runs counter to what the real 'word of God' is. How would you know the difference between the deceptive version and the real version?Updated Info: 1) We're working within the context of Christianity and all the presuppositions this theology accepts (there is a God/Jesus, the Bible is the word of God) 2) There exist multiple versions of the Bible. 3) One version of the Bible is perfectly deceptive, and one if perfectly true to the word of God. The question: How do we know which book is correct? How do we know what we should believe given the propensity for such deception and unintentional beliefs? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 11:53:53 AM by Anxiety »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2009, 11:07:20 PM » |
|
Interesting question. Logically, if you can find either copy that dates back to the original time frame then we could compare notes and writing style differences.
Then again, if the book is based solely to deceive us, then the choices become based on statistics alone. For both books would contain the same stories, yet have different pieces to each story. A deceiving thought would have to be at least 1/2 truth to be considered valid. The other half could be made up to make a logical conclusion.
You have a 50-50 chance of getting the correct and truthful book. The odds then diminish with the number of books published under each guise, since some readers may find that they enjoy the writings of a particular version and therefore create more of that version then the other.
If the authors of the two were alive to question, then of course we would end up with a stalemate. For the deceiver would adamantly state that theirs was the correct version and not the other. The truthful author would also state the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Brandy
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2009, 08:34:05 AM » |
|
Deeper thoughts + Dangerous questions = DANGEROUS THOUGHTS. Oh no. The evil d[a]emon, sometimes referred to as the evil genius, is a concept in Cartesian philosophy. In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Ren? Descartes hypothesises the existence of an evil demon, a personification who is "as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me." The evil demon presents a complete illusion of an external world, including other people, to Descartes' senses, where in fact there is no such external world in existence. The evil genius also presents to Descartes' senses a complete illusion of his own body, including all bodily sensations, where in fact Descartes has no body. Most Cartesian scholars opine that the evil demon is also omnipotent, and thus capable of altering mathematics and the fundamentals of logic. Most of us reject Cartesian skepticism for the sake of our sanity, however, let's apply this to something a bit different. Let's presuppose that the world around us is true and not completely deceptive. But let's consider for a moment that there exist books that are completely deceptive and full of untruths. Now consider a deceiving Bible that runs counter to what the real 'word of God' is. How would you know the difference between the deceptive version and the real version? I think it would depend on what the definition of "God" is in this scenario. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2009, 03:51:02 PM » |
|
To stir it more, which definition of "God"? How would you know which definition is the correct one? The person deceiving could also give us different theologies to confuse the situation even further. Thereby increasing the odds against finding the "true Word of God".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Brandy
|
|
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2009, 04:10:50 PM » |
|
Can we take it a step at a time? Can we say there's one God, that we know there is a bible that is contrary to the "real word of God"? And that we know who that God is, at least in this scenario? At least for a moment before we start throwing in all the other philosophical scenarios? I would like to be able to be a part of a thread for a little bit before we get all....confusing.  (We need an emoticon that represents mental exhaustion or frustration. The tongue is all I've got. Maybe one with eyes that move in circles- not rolling...). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2009, 08:05:05 PM » |
|
Fair assumption  However, the problem of God is at the heart of this thread. The deceiver (BAD GUY) has written a bible that is cunny, witty, and full of half truths. It blurs the picture of God into whatever we what God to be. Yet, the God of this bible is not the true God that exists. God (Good Guy) has written a bible that holds the truth. Yet, it doesn't discuss the inaccuracies in the other bible. The question is: if what you know and can understand who or what God is comes from a bible then how do we know if the bible that we use to depict God Awe and Beauty is the real one or one that is false? We base our arguments, emotions and intuitions on what we read in either bible. The problem is to look at this from an objective viewpoint - from a viewpoint of someone who has not read any of the bibles - how do we determine which is true or false? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Miranda
Newbie
 Offline
Posts: 7
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2009, 10:43:22 PM » |
|
If God is "good" and the deceiver is "bad" it would be easy. We are all born with a sense of what is right and what is wrong, therefore, the concepts contained in the "evil" book would come across as wrong to us. If it runs counter to the "word of God" as we know it, it would most likely be telling us that love and compassion are bad things, to commit adultery and murder, etc. If we do indeed have an inborn sense of right and wrong, a moral sense, it would be clear to us that murder and hatred are not good things. In that case, though we may not call the book out for being deceptive and untrue, we would not find value in it and it would certainly not become the best-seller that the "real" Bible has. The reason The Bible is so popular - aside from the hordes of people who adamantly exclaim its truthfulness - is that the lessons contained in it make us feel good. The ideas of love, justice, and peace are ones that feel right to us, therefore so does The Bible - the right one, the good one.
Supposedly.
Of course if we really aren't born with a moral sense this whole post is invalid and I will have to come up with something else. Though if we aren't born with a sense of right and wrong, there may not really be a right and wrong and then the wrong bible might be the right one, because what are right and wrong anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Brandy
|
|
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2009, 09:25:33 AM » |
|
My point, Paul, was that it would be great to start a thread off small instead of jumping head first into all the different "possibilities." I was merely trying to take the question at face value, first. Given the question: "Now consider a deceiving Bible that runs counter to what the real 'word of God' is. How would you know the difference between the deceptive version and the real version?", it would seem that we know there is a deceiving bible, a real word of God, therefore implying there is a God already established.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Brandy
|
|
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2009, 09:26:01 AM » |
|
Oh! Glad to see you back on, Miranda!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2009, 03:06:31 PM » |
|
My point, Paul, was that it would be great to start a thread off small instead of jumping head first into all the different "possibilities." I was merely trying to take the question at face value, first. Given the question: "Now consider a deceiving Bible that runs counter to what the real 'word of God' is. How would you know the difference between the deceptive version and the real version?", it would seem that we know there is a deceiving bible, a real word of God, therefore implying there is a God already established.
Ok I stand corrected for jumping ahead.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2009, 03:09:49 PM » |
|
Of course if we really aren't born with a moral sense this whole post is invalid and I will have to come up with something else. Though if we aren't born with a sense of right and wrong, there may not really be a right and wrong and then the wrong bible might be the right one, because what are right and wrong anyway?
Morals are a learned response to life's lessons. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Brandy
|
|
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2009, 03:46:03 PM » |
|
My point, Paul, was that it would be great to start a thread off small instead of jumping head first into all the different "possibilities." I was merely trying to take the question at face value, first. Given the question: "Now consider a deceiving Bible that runs counter to what the real 'word of God' is. How would you know the difference between the deceptive version and the real version?", it would seem that we know there is a deceiving bible, a real word of God, therefore implying there is a God already established.
Ok I stand corrected for jumping ahead. It's not like it won't go there. I just can't always keep up with you two and I haven't been able to join in on a thread for awhile because I was lost before I started....  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2009, 10:25:10 PM » |
|
Just keep reminding us that we are getting too far ahead. It doesn't bother us, just helps become more attuned to other readers and their needs and also how they may feel that they can't interacdt because of how fast the thread is moving. Thanks and please don't anyone feel that they shouldn't participate because of where the other writers are heading. Remind us that your thoughts and analysis are just as important and may let light shine on another thought that we are missing.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2009, 11:48:49 PM » |
|
Such a complex question requires detailed information, and I don't think I've made it entirely clear-- for that I apologize.
1) We're working within the context of Christianity and all the presuppositions this theology asserts (there is a God/Jesus, the Bible is the word of God)
2) There exist multiple versions of the Bible.
3) One version of the Bible is perfectly deceptive, and one if perfectly true to the word of God.
The question: How do we know which book is correct? How do we know what we should believe given the propensity for such deception and unintentional beliefs?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
