Is it important to know what is really real?

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by Willamena

You know your "mind". Same deal.

I agree, my thoughts are Gods thoughts.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Spiritman

What is meant by "plus what God knows" is that man can reason with God and participate in His vast knowledge.

How?

One can never expect to know all that God knows but we who believe in Him can expect to know what we need to know.

OK, good.

Even those who believe not in God nevertheless use His wisdom to grow. For example science and math are universal and eternal entities and do not depend on man. If man is not then these entities still exist. Math, science, and logic are properties of the Eternal One and do not change because these are the properties of God's omniscients.

I disagree. Science, math, and logic are human developments, tools for evaluating the world we are in. They are not properties of God.

Even atheist depend on God for their actual existence and experiences.

Unless, of course, they're right and God does not exist.

The Communist killing fields in Cambodia were only possible because the powers that were reasoned that it was the right thing to do to kill innocent and helpless people. Godly logic would never allow such a reasoned process of evil.

Untrue. There are many accounts of "Godly logic" produing evil in the OT.

Man left free to establish his own rules of reasoning will always result in man's inhumanity to man.

Also untrue. Secular ethics are at least equal to religious.

No premise of thinking is more reliable than God. To deny this fact is to replace God's omniscients with man's wisdom.

I disgree.

Man does not make a reliable supreme being. I don't want man to control things nor do I seek man to watch over me. I choose God and His eternal rules and reject moral relativity on these premises.

What you want is irrelevant to what is.

[Spiritman]

Originally Posted by Storm

How?
OK, good.

I disagree. Science, math, and logic are human developments, tools for evaluating the world we are in. They are not properties of God.

Unless, of course, they're right and God does not exist.

Untrue. There are many accounts of "Godly logic" produing evil in the OT.

Also untrue. Secular ethics are at least equal to religious.

I disgree.

What you want is irrelevant to what is.

When evil is produced in the OT it is recorded as evil but the source of evil is never godly logic.

I fail to see how secular ethics are equal to those ethical standards given to us by God but you did not refer to godly standards, only religious standards. That being the case I agree with you. Religious ethics (all religions) might not be based on godly, eternal, and self evident standards as found in the Constitution of the USA. What the secular minority wants is actually out of step with the moral code of the majority who have overwhelmingly chosen godly standards over humanism.

Grant it, the liberals in our society have done a tremendous job in picturing our society as more secular or liberal than what it really is. Close to 90% of citizens believe in God while the other 10% are left to portray a different picture than what "really is."As to "what is" you do not see what is as I see it. What is a fact is that Americans have rejected moral relativity in adopting the USA Constitution and the various fifty state constitutions. Western Civilization.

Spiritman

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Spiritman

When evil is produced in the OT it is recorded as evil but the source of evil is never godly logic.

No true Scotsman...

I fail to see how secular ethics are equal to those ethical standards given to us by God but you did not refer to godly standards, only religious standards.

How do you tell the difference between "Godly" and "religious" standards?

What are some examples of "Godly" standards?

That being the case I agree with you. Religious ethics (all religions) might not be based on godly, eternal, and self evident standards as found in the Constitution of the USA.

The Constitution is secular, and humanist as well.

What the secular minority wants is actually out of step with the moral code of the majority who have overwhelmingly chosen godly standards over humanism.

Asserting it doesn't make it true.

Grant it, the liberals in our society have done a tremendous job in picturing our society as more secular or liberal than what it really is. Close to 90% of citizens believe in God while the other 10% are left to portray a different picture than what "really is."As to "what is" you do not see what is as I see it. What is a fact is that Americans have rejected moral relativity in adopting the USA Constitution and the various fifty state constitutions. Western Civilization.

Prove it.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Spiritman

The difference is found in the old argument that many philosophers believe true real things do not change while that changing things are not real but are only "appearances" and not really real. I allude to this concept as taught in philosophy. On what side do you favor in this argument?
Spiritman

The notion that "true real things do not change" is mere unfounded prejudice.

[Spiritman]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

The notion that "true real things do not change" is mere unfounded prejudice.

How so?
Spiritman

[Spiritman]

Originally Posted by Storm

No true Scotsman...

As stated, godly standards are based on premises that do not change.

Love, unalienable rights, self evident rights, etc.

I see no support for this assertion whatsoever.

If one can say it based on evidence, which we have, then it is more true than that which is not said.

We have prove it. It's your turn to disprove it if you disagree.
Spiritman