Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Larry Castle
195 followers -
Husband • Dad • Pastor • Digital Agency Manager • Armchair Philosopher
Husband • Dad • Pastor • Digital Agency Manager • Armchair Philosopher

195 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
Wooohoo! My little girl really shines on her bands new Christmas album. So proud of you +Susannah Castle!
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
I was pursuing an old discussion thread today (https://plus.google.com/116049807001076946090/posts/B2bc3LfhCTB?iem=4&gpawv=1&hl=en-US) and happened to rewatch one of the videos another user posted: https://youtu.be/uOe2kf_PJfw

It never ceases to amaze me how some folks will just promote anything that seems to lean in their direction in an argument, regardless of how much else is objectionable in the resource, in order to try to win a point.

I'm pretty certain this user would not approve of the general outlook of the channel manager who annotated this video. Note the screenshot in which I highlighted the racially bigoted comment of the channel's owner.

There were several other annotations that attempted to explain away parts of the video that the channel's owner disagreed with. It seemed to discredit any redeeming value the video might have otherwise had.

I encourage my Christian brothers and sisters to be careful to not be guilty of the same thing. Be careful who you promote and what you use as resource material in defense of your views. You may end up undercutting your entire credibility in order to win a quick point in an argument.
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Proof of miracles...

You can read the whole convoluted discussion here if you're into self-torture: https://plus.google.com/116049807001076946090/posts/B2bc3LfhCTB?iem=4&gpawv=1&hl=en-US
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
We can help them. Here’s one way to do that...
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
“Jesus Christ IS the Mercy of God!”
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Oh, that's why! Makes good sense.
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
I have been challenged in this community to defend my worldview of Theism on more than one occasion. The last time I simply referenced, 'I think, therefore I am" as my starting principal to knowledge itself and then to God's existence. Below I explain why and how I am lead by René Descarte's, "Cogito ergo sum" to this conclusion.

All forms of knowledge claiming, including science and empiricism are built on required presuppositions (faith asserting). Consciousness is the only substrate of any possible claim to knowledge and thus the starting and ending point to posit a reality or any truth. Why would one limit themselves to posit empiricism (science's founding principle) as the only method of truth, which is also a product/idea of “Mind” but leads to a world-view that denies one's self, the objective reasoner as no more than mere biochemical illusory as the result of it's assertions.

Empiricism states that knowledge must be restricted to those objects which can be perceived by our senses. At the same time empiricism requires non-empirical foundational presuppositions and these presuppositions are not material themselves, they are metaphysical. Empiricism must assume mathematics, logic and human reason trustworthy; and that the Universe is rational and in line with a rational human consciousness/mind because these are not physical objects which can be perceived by any of our five senses. Mathematics, logic and reason originate and reside in the metaphysical consciousness, the mind. These metaphysical conceptual constructs can not be tested/falsified outside of themselves empirically thus are asserted as objective.

The root problem in Empirical Science is a Materialistic positing that consciousness/mind is mere by-product functioning of brain. Mathematics, reason and logic would therefore be results of this mere by-product functioning of brain called “Mind”. If morality, self awareness, emotions and freewill are also mere results of Mind (the brain by-product) it would then seem to be just cherry picking to trust logic over self-awareness or mathematics over morality and in the end become some form of “begging the question”. Empiricism alone is self-refuting. The theory that all knowledge is limited to what can be empirically known is itself, incapable of being known or demonstrated empirically. When adding the fact that empiricism can not answer for any trustworthy substrate for knowledge that is solely metaphysical (one's self, the objective reasoner); and the fact that the only substrate for claimed knowledge is “one's self, the objective reasoner”, shows empiricism as fallacious at it's core claim of being the only methodology for knowledge. Are presuppositions knowledge, well no, in fact they are actually mere faith asserting.

Freewill to choose immoral behavior or even prefer immoral behavior may seem to not be objective but once the ill-behaved is treated "badly" they will always contest this as cruel or wrong. Anyone as the victim of immoral actions will always desire to escape said immoral actions placed on them. This seems to lead to moral objectiveness. Many people may claim to be pro-abortion but if given the “choice” that they themselves stand in as the aborted, only the suicidal would volunteer. No one that values “Choice” would want to be aborted themselves other than the suicidal. The question then would be, not if abortion is moral but is suicide moral. This leaves no doubt about the question that abortion is immoral; meaning that the normal person that is pro-abortion would not want to be aborted themselves unless suicidal. Suicide is already against the law, so why is suicide against the law but abortion not?

Science's necessary presuppositions are otherwise inexplicable but logically follow after the positing of a Supreme Being designer of the Universe and life. These presuppositions do not logically follow without such a worldview as to what is real and how we can know this to be reality.

Logic and math are also presupposed as vaild means to understanding what is real and our reality but also are inexplicable otherwise as to why they seem to function so well.
 
Once one posits a Supreme Being designer of the Universe and life; logic, reason, rationally, science and mathematics become validated. All above presuppositional foundations are accounted for with this starting principal notion;  Pragmatically, there is a God".

Theism's discovery has predated or coincided with the discovery of philosophy, mathematics, geometry, logic, rationally and science. Why, because it validates their means and presuppositions as to actually true means of the knowledge of reality. Rather than failing to account for such unknowables, presuppositions are used to claim knowledge and even some people discard our ability to know anything at all. To hold presuppositions of one's abilities of their mind as "inexplicable" but nevertheless trust this mind to know what is real is a contradiction. It is a contradiction to assert that inexplicable means are able to lead to true and actual results.

Throughout almost every single culture, every single civilization, and every single human era including our modern era there is a history of a Supreme Being. It is a worldview that has been held since the beginning of recorded history and by the majority in every era. Theism has been independently discovered and revered over different locations, by different eras and different cultures. The mind found within mankind and mind's discovery of Philosophy, Mathematics, Geometry, Logic, Rationally and Science is evidence for God. Theism validated all of these, as they were being discovered, as a true means for mankind to know reality.

Moral obligations would not pragmatically exist if there is no God. It would be no less moral to cast a child into a river that you tripped over than to case a rock into a river you tripped over.

Morality, justice and guilt itself would not be pragmatic if there is no God. If any moral obligation is a net loss to the individual, it would not be pragmatic for the individual to follow such an obligation if there was no God.

A Russellian world implies this proposition and moral obligations with any net loss or that break even become impractical and absurd. You may claim that for yourself, "Pragmatically, there is no God", but you don't live your life by the consequences this assertion would make pragmatically. And if you don't even live by consequences this worldview pragmatically leads to, it surly cannot be pragmatic, even for only yourself to claim as true.

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they appear from sensory perception. The mind's ability to know reality is dependent on a posited worldview to assert. All worldviews that operate on the assumption, "there is no God", further limit the mind's ability to know any true reality rather than affirming such abilities to knowledge. The worldview of "there is a God" affirms these abilities to know truths about reality. Therefore, it is not at all pragmatic to claim there is no God. However, it is essential that there is God in order to account for the otherwise inexplicable presuppositions in all means of knowledge. If means of knowledge are pragmatic then so is the worldview "There is a God" that actually validates these means.

Wg Williams
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded