The Church itself is rooted in the idea that there are autorities on matter of faith and they adopted the Platonical Agostinean idea that faith is empowered by reason.
Reason being a valid tool means you have experts that reasoned a lot about religion and people that know less and needs to be taught, ultimately by the Pope.
The “other” side tends to reject authorities, and take the words of the bible as sobjected to personal interpretation or, to an extent, make it into some sort of magical object that the faithfull subjects itself to, without questions. Accepting the contradictions, the illogal parts, are what that kind of faith is about because to question (throught reasoning) God is a Sin.
Ah theologians. When we invented agriculture so that not everyone had to work on gathering food, this enabled some of us to specialize in advanced skills. But theology, wow. What a waste of time. Get those dudes out in the fields.
Okay you haven’t been very explanatory about your statement that theologians were scientists. But it seems you are using the term extremely loosely to mean anyone who explores questions.
This is not my definition at all. Science is a method of exploring questions that involves hypotheses and tests and building principles from observed results. Theologians do none of that and never did. They made shit up. That is not science.
That’s the one, funnily enough in a perverted twist, they tend to see wealth as a sign that God has picked them as favourites (graced them) and they storically gravitated toward seeing poor people as, well, sinners, even thought their principles state that anyone could be graced or not no matter the more evident aspects of life.
Can he create a stone that is not liftable and then proceed to lift it?
Unironically the question by witch many Christian faiths differ: does God needs abide to the rules of logic or not?
For the Roman Catholic, yes, for Calvinists and a bunch other (ok, many other but I’m not an expert), no.
Answer: whatever causes the person you’re arguing with to throw their hands up and storm off more exasperated…
No, not really, it’s mostly a matter of power.
The Church itself is rooted in the idea that there are autorities on matter of faith and they adopted the Platonical Agostinean idea that faith is empowered by reason. Reason being a valid tool means you have experts that reasoned a lot about religion and people that know less and needs to be taught, ultimately by the Pope.
The “other” side tends to reject authorities, and take the words of the bible as sobjected to personal interpretation or, to an extent, make it into some sort of magical object that the faithfull subjects itself to, without questions. Accepting the contradictions, the illogal parts, are what that kind of faith is about because to question (throught reasoning) God is a Sin.
Ah theologians. When we invented agriculture so that not everyone had to work on gathering food, this enabled some of us to specialize in advanced skills. But theology, wow. What a waste of time. Get those dudes out in the fields.
Back in the days they were just philosophers aka scientists.
“aka scientists?”
Not sure what that means.
Also known as scientists.
I can understand calling theologians philosophers but being a philosopher does not make you a scientist.
Nothing “makes” you anything. Questioning and exploring existence can look very different in different ages.
Okay you haven’t been very explanatory about your statement that theologians were scientists. But it seems you are using the term extremely loosely to mean anyone who explores questions.
This is not my definition at all. Science is a method of exploring questions that involves hypotheses and tests and building principles from observed results. Theologians do none of that and never did. They made shit up. That is not science.
There’s a reason the French beheaded the clergy alongside the nobility.
Calvanists the ones that say since god is all powerful there can be no free will/everything is decided don’t apply logic?
That’s the one, funnily enough in a perverted twist, they tend to see wealth as a sign that God has picked them as favourites (graced them) and they storically gravitated toward seeing poor people as, well, sinners, even thought their principles state that anyone could be graced or not no matter the more evident aspects of life.
The easiest answer to this is yes, he could create a stone he couldn’t lift. And then he could lift it anyway.
Actually the easiest answer is “no” because it doesn’t require cognitive dissonance.
There’s no cognitive dissonance in negating a false negative
What false negative? If he can lift it then he didn’t create a stone he can’t lift. Can he make one plus one equal anything other than two?