|
作者
|
內容
|
|
carl
|
Posted -
2004/6/9 下午 11:12:02
|
|
|
以下在宗教板所看其中一些問題
a
辯論 <宗教與心靈>
face.bbs@bbs.cis.nctu.edu.tw (捐血一桶救人一命) 回應 轉寄
2003年04月13日 02:01:17
原文太長, 省略!
我發現基督徒普遍存在一個錯誤的觀念: 分不清楚眼睛看不見但可客觀測度的現象
(或物質,或屬性),以及眼睛看不見且無從測度的現象, 兩者的差異.
基督徒最常舉的例子, 包刮風, 熱, 電... 這些雖然看不見, 卻能夠用儀器客觀的
測度出來(但上帝存在與否, 有儀器可以克觀測度嗎?), 就以原文中的例子來說,
教授的腦子雖然看不見, 卻可以用醫學儀器檢驗其存在性; 請問現今有哪種儀器可以
證明上帝存在?
基督徒的第二個普遍存在的錯誤觀念, 就是以
"母愛寬恕仁慈這些東西看不見, 難道這些就不存在嗎?"
用這樣的問題來推論
"雖然我們看不見上帝, 可是因為母愛看不見,
母愛確實存在, 所以上帝存在" 更是離譜到家!
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
b
你們中古的聖人不是一邊做好人做善工去幫人，
一邊殺異己嗎？為何異己就要殺死？不信者去火湖？
那他們不是好的基督徒嗎？還是你的信仰是傳播仇恨？
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
c
為甚麼以前有基督徒可以用聖經內文為依據，
使賣買黑人為奴成為合法事？當中有神職人員。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
d
為何你們基督徒在第二次世界大戰時，
只救助天主教，或基督教的猶太人？這是你們愛的真理？
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
e
聖經是本無智慧的書？（這個題目一個佛教徒講）
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
站長放有這裡有無問題？
folder name 錯了，為何不能改？
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2004/6/10 上午 08:42:09
|
|
|
Better discuss the 4 points (a)-(d) in DIFFERENT columns. One point in each.
Let's look at point (a):
"雖然我們看不見上帝, 可是因為母愛看不見,
母愛確實存在, 所以上帝存在", frankly speaking this is problematic argument. I guess what they really mean is 所以上帝not necessarily 不存在.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2004/6/10 上午 09:01:09
|
|
|
Since Kant, men has grown accustomed to think only in terms of phenomena and refuses to accept any extra-mental realities. Men is thus blocked within his own consciousness.
According to this "great" German meister, what we perceive is mere projections of our own natural ways of thinking onto perceived objects(not any real objects but our sense of it).
So that Science is reduced to the mere explanation of "HOW" things happen and not "WHY" things happen.
In other words, modern Science is but a kind of "playing with our own minds"---using paradaigms...etc. to explain the sense data we perceive daily.
For example, according to the Kantians and "modern" positivists, when we say the law of gravity (a paradaigm) makes an apple fall, it's our own mind that conceive this F=ma law. So F=ma thus only helps us to explain the perceived falling apple, but not really giving account of ANY OBJECTIVE extra-mental reality at all.
(Is it not playing with our own minds?)
That is, what I try to say is, you (as many tried to) will never suceed is using the convenience of advantage of the "modern, common, superstitious and sacred reverence of science" as your starting point of appeal to prove ANY Metaphysical truths like existence of God, existence of Souls, the first laws...etc.
Modern science should never become the starting point of natural theology.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2004/6/10 上午 10:46:32
|
|
|
What use even if God Himself descends from Heaven and appears on every TVs over the world to proclaim his existence? Or Jesus seen with our own eyes in the White House talking to Bush?
Even that is useless to convince the modern man. Why?
"How do you not know these are not your OWN hallucinations?"---...???
sounds like the age old foolishness of Nominalism revived, "You can't just believe your eyes.", "that's just the appearance of a G?d", "Phenomenally there is a perceived Being, but in reality He may not be anything"
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2004/6/10 下午 10:26:19
|
|
|
「看不見、感受不到的事物均存在」，至少我不認同這個看法。因此我不認為以上貼文所指的該些「離譜到家」的看法，是「基督徒普遍存在的」錯誤觀念。
在第二次世界大戰時，有何証據顯示基督徒只向皈依基督信仰的猶太人伸出援手？
有興趣的人士可參閱以下連結：
Pius XII and the Holocaust
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2004/6/11 上午 10:14:40
|
|
|
"看不見、感受不到的事物均存在" is not the same as "all non-perceivable thing you can imagine of exists in reality, like a triangle that has 4 sides".
Need a bit of clarification
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2004/6/11 下午 09:00:43
|
|
|
A triangle having 4 sides isn't only non-perceivable, but also non-conceivable. Therefore it is also unimaginable.
Do you agree?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2004/6/13 下午 08:14:07
|
|
|
"To conceive" seems not to be the same as "to imagine":
The former: "to create in the mind", the latter: "To form a mental picture of" (Webster Dictionary Student Ed.).
What are their differences (before I answer)?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2004/6/13 下午 08:16:06
|
|
|
If putting aside the difference between "imagine" and "perceive".
In my last posting I said "all non-perceivable thing you can imagine of...", accordingly I (already) agree that non-perceivable things could be imaginable, like a 4 sided triangle.
(Whether they exist in reality is something else.)
For example, "redness" (or any universal quoad rem conceptam) is non perceivable, we see only red things, but we have an idea of it. Can we have an idea of something while not capable of "imagining" it? Can we imagine "redness- as it is in itself"?
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2004/6/14 下午 08:19:41
|
|
|
I do agree that some non-perceivable things are imaginable or conveivable. However, I disagree to your notion that a "4-sided triangle" is ever conceivable / imaginable.
According to my understanding, a 4-sided triangle is a contradiction in terms. From the same perspective, a polygon has a definite number of angles and sides. A triangle cannot at the same time have more than 3 sides or angles. The very definition of geometry makes it impossible to be so.
To imagine and to conceive may mean actually very similar thing - understood in different aspects. To imagine is to form images in the mind; while to concieve is to form concepts in the mind.
Do you agree?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2004/6/15 上午 09:05:35
|
|
|
I get your point.
If reduced to the first principles, indeed, "a 4 sided triangle"(or any contradictory notion) means the same as "non-being" or just "nothingness". This I am fully aware.
But we need to distinguish clearly "imagine---to form mental images" from "conceive---to have concepts",
which I previously could not do so since I didn't grasp their real diffenerce, I think your explanation is plausible, viz.,
We may conceive "non-being" but may not imagine it.
I think we gain the concept of "nothingness"/ to conceive nothingness indirectly through the notion of being. We can have a concept of "nonthingness"/ contradictory notions, (if not how do we judge them to be contradictory?) But I agree with you that we can never have a real picture/image of "nonthingness".
|
|
carl
|
Posted -
2004/6/17 上午 01:54:15
|
|
|
我又看到有新的問題，教會歷史有無解答。
18以上的問題 <宗教與心靈>
有咩@我都唔知.電郵 (雲帥)
問題1:請問耶穌懂不懂寫書的呢?
問題2:請問，若他懂得寫，他有沒有真的寫過書呢?
問題3:請問，若他沒有真的寫過書，為何其他人卻似是親身體會的幫他寫出來呢?
問題4:請問，有那一個「真正的門徒」為耶穌寫過書?
問題7:為何其他人保存了保羅的信，反而沒有人保存耶穌的信?
問題8:請問彼得懂不懂寫信呢?
問題9:為何其他人保存了保羅的信，反而沒有人保存彼得的信?
問題10:請問瑪利亞懂不懂寫信呢?
問題11:為何其他人保存了保羅的信，反而沒有人保存瑪利亞的信?
問題12:請問彼得懂不懂寫書的呢?
問題13:請問十二門徒懂不懂寫信呢?
問題14:請問耶穌的書信珍貴一點還是保羅的書信珍貴一點?
問題15:請問十二門徒的書信珍貴一點還是保羅的書信珍貴一點?
問題16:請問為何沒有耶穌或者十二門徒這麼多人的書信、卻只有保羅一個人的一言堂?
問題18:請問基督徒應該信十二門徒多一點還是信保羅多一點?
問題19:請問基督徒應該信耶穌還是信保羅多一點?
問題20:請問保羅說謊的能力強不強呢?
以上全是「問題」，希望得道高人替我指點迷津!
|
|
edward
|
Posted -
2004/6/21 下午 06:53:59
|
|
|
這類問題，基本上不是歷史問題，而是意圖將一些理論上的假設，套成客觀的事實。而該些假設和在歷史中發生與否，其實是不相關的。
即使在理論上可以證明，耶穌的書信是比保祿的書信更為珍貴，亦不可能因此而推論出：因為保祿所寫的書信現存如世，故此比保祿書信更為珍貴的耶穌書信亦應存在。（潛台詞：保祿書信現存而耶穌書信不現存是不合理的。）
某一物在設想中有比它更為完美的另一物，並不會因此就證明出該另一物就會客觀地存在。
況且，伯多祿的書信亦有現存於世的。
|
