This site is supported by Nobility Studios.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Theophilus

  • Rank

Theophilus's Activity

  1. Theophilus added a topic in History and Philosophy of Science   

    Benefits of Relativity
    I mean this as a legitimate question; I'm no trying to start an argument. What have been the practical (non-theoretical) effects, of  Relativity Theory (Special or General), i.e. are lines shorter at the supermarket; do we have better gas mileage; are airline schedules more reliable?
    • 3 replies
  2. Theophilus added a question in Help   

    Socratic Method
    I posted this to Hugo, but I'll accept answers from others.
    Is it possible to practice the "Socratic method" in teaching without accepting Socrates theory of knowledge?
    • 1 reply
  3. Theophilus added a comment on a blog entry A Prayer   

    Hear the voice of the Lord;"Be still and know that I am God;I will be exalted among the nations,I will be exalted in the earth!"Psalm 46:10
    • 0
  4. Theophilus added a comment on a blog entry A Prayer   

    Well, I find that humans are anything but reticent, declaring virtually any kind of thought, word or action as being expressive of love (perhaps you are too young to remember the "summer of love" of San Francisco fame).From the Christian point of view, i.e. the Biblical, soteriological point of view, there is no mystery (though there is much confusion) about the nature of love. The statement "God is love" is not a reflexive proposition, e.g. "love is God." Since what we can know of God is found in his self-revelation given its fullest expression in the life and work of Christ ("the image of the invisible God"), we understand that the love of God is nothing else but Christ himself.Christians (and non-believers) who look for some motivation of affection in the creator for his creation are led into theological error. John 3:16 is often cited in this regard: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, etc" where the word "so" is taken as an expression of the intensity of God's love motivating him to "give." Consulting a Greek lexicon reveals that "so" means "thus" or "in this way" (t is "so" used in several verses). So, a true reading of the verse would be "for in this way God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, etc." This meaning is consistent with the context of the preceding verses. With God, there is no motivation apart from action; what God wills, he does.Thus, the Christian who would manifest the love of God, should not concern himself with how he feels about his "neighbor," but how he treats him, e.g. the "good" Samaratin.Finally, God does not possess, or rather is not possessed of, isolated emotions, e.g., love, hate, affection, wrath. Unlike his creatures, he does not express different feelings at different times. His actions are at all times reflective of his unified character. So, his blessings AND curses are an expression of his perfect righteousness, justness and holiness in a particular situation. We do not curse one another, not because we are all equally worthy, but because we are all equally unworthy.
    • 1
  5. Theophilus added a post in a topic Does God Exist?   

    Questions regarding the "non-existence" of God (the correct term, I believe) can only be framed from within a worldview that has first demonstrated its own epistemological sufficiency, including the appropriateness of the standard of proof being urged.

    Thus, empiricism has no standard of proof by which to test the existence of an immaterial entity.

    So, how about specifying your epistemological frame of referrence?
    • 0
  6. Theophilus added a post in a topic "Missing Link Found?"   

    Bricks have a habit of crumbling under pressure.
    • 0
  7. Theophilus added a post in a topic Does God Exist?   

    There are none.
    • 0
  8. Theophilus added a post in a topic Does God Exist?   

    Have you read Van Til?
    • 0
  9. Theophilus added a post in a topic Ultimate Personal Goal in life?   

    Why wait until your parents and children are gone?
    • 0
  10. Theophilus added a post in a topic Janes blunder   

    I guess this was just an overflowing of the frustration I'm experiencing seeing Richard Dawkins, et al, making their naive claims of "evidence" based knowledge every time I glance at U Tube.

    I find it hard to believe that such "reputable" scientists can be unaquainted with the general philosophical problems related to Empiricism, e.g. David Hume, as well as the more specific issues relating to scienc, ala Karl Popper.
    • 0
  11. Theophilus added a post in a topic Janes blunder   

    I'm sorry, I thought the problem was self-evident, i.e. "instruments" are merely an extension of the human sensory apparatus and, thus, do not escape the problems of Empiricist epistemology.
    • 0
  12. Theophilus added a post in a topic Janes blunder   

    I have to confess to having typed this from a PDF file.
    • 0
  13. Theophilus added a topic in Explore   

    Janes blunder
    The following is from the 1942 edition of James Janes "Physics and Philosophy," chapter 2, How do we Know?

    "In the period we have been considering, science claimed only one source of knowledge of the facts and objects of the ourter worlk, namely the impressions they make on the mind through the medium of the senses. Yet the untrustworthiness of the senses had been one of the commonplaces of philosophy from Greek times on, and if the same facts and objects of the outer world mad different impressions on different minds, where did science stant?"

    "These difficulties are non-existent to the modern physicist, who can trust his instruments to give absolutely objective and unbiased information,..."

    How could a man with such unquestionable understanding of philosophic issues make such an astonishingly simple mistake?
    • 7 replies
  14. Theophilus added a post in a topic The Christian Trinity   

    I have a terrible habit of unintentionally hijacking threads (I am also, for reasons I don't understand, something of a thread killer). I'll try not to do that here, but a couple of observations on the nature of the Bible.

    The Bible is not an evangelistic tract. It (its various parts) was written by believers to believers to give an historical and theological context for the things they had already believed and to confirm their faith.

    The Pentatuch was written for the Hebrews (not Jews) who had just been liberated from Egypt; the Gospels were written to believers, most of whom had not encountered Jesus during his earthly life.

    The Bible, contrary to many apologists, does not, nor does it attempt to "prove" anything. The "proof," e.g. the resurrection, are only meaningful within a covenantal, prophetic context.

    The doctrine of the trinity (the Triune God) is a theological construct which attempts to relate the Bible's clear affirmation of One God, while at the same time ascribing the activities and attributes of God to three distinct persons.
    • 0
  15. Theophilus added a post in a topic Help: Difficult passages   

    Perhaps you're looking for more than is really here (yes, I understand the irony).
    There are two types of optical illusions:
    1. Those which are merely different ways of looking at an image, e.g. the wine glass/faces image. Neither is "correct."
    2. Those which occur when the observer misinterprets (mis-perceives) what he is actually seeing. One day while driving on the freeway, I observed an illuminated billboard that was displaying a series of brite green fractal images. On closer examination, however, I realized I was actually "seeing" the sun reflecting off palm fronds waving in front of the black background of the sign.

    So, in the second case, there was no "illusion ... with regard to the (actual thing)", but a misinterpretation on the part of the observer.
    • 0