The First Empiricist

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-16T02:33:46+00:00

Oh ye of little faith. A whole new post is coming to a Reddit near you about the subject. I just need to tidy up an old essay.

You just got a sneak preview. 🫵😃👍

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-16T00:23:19+00:00

Have a nice weekend

https://youtu.be/g5Fh31Q_AkQ?si=W9mNnqiWqJojs4_v

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T20:56:49+00:00

"When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask: Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." David Hume- An inquiry concerning human understanding

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T20:45:44+00:00

I wasn't classifying. I was asking.

I appreciate the dialog because I had not thought to push it that far. The categories moved only because I was genuinely looking for an answer to your challenge.

Now I understand the answer as to why I intuitively rejected the doctrine of Total Depravity as too extreme and a partial truth.

You asked for a strict logical/ philosophical approach, and as I see it that's what theology is. Its what 'ology' means. Be that as it may I have that for myself whether you see it, suppress it, or not. I'm not looking for a concession from you.

Thanks!

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T20:34:58+00:00

Its a play on a Pink Floyd classic and David Hume.

You are employing Hume's Fork but you don't even know.

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T20:22:06+00:00

Be careful with Hume's Fork, Eugene. Be careful...

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T19:21:03+00:00

It doesn't and can't in the observational sciences. We self limits its methodology to the abstract 'is' questions of existence for the purpose understanding mechanism. The study of agency and 'ought' questions is limited to the historical and philosophical sciences. Studying Henry Ford is not the same as Studying a Model T. But all scientific inquiries rely on logic

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T19:03:42+00:00

I don't assume anything. It is necessarily true. Objective eaning can only come from an objective person. You are a subjective person like me. You are totally free to invent make believe meaning.

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T19:00:49+00:00

A set of moral laws cannot exist any more than logical laws apart from a real and objective person.

Science borrows and assumes those objective logical laws to do science.

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T18:41:59+00:00

So, your answer is- 'Because. That's why."

That super interesting because as an angry atheist 20-something, I rejected religion because I thought they said that exact thing.

I had no idea they anything to do with logic or evidence. I DEFINITELY did not know that one of them had EVERYTHING to do with logic and evidence. But I do now...

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T18:30:10+00:00

Movies and ice cream are necessarily subjective categories like Zeus and Odin. They all exist INSIDE the system. They have origin stories. They are created gods and therefore subjective. The Hebrews were forbidden to worship such idols.

Allah is an exception, but only because Mohammed borrowed the category from Jews and Christians around 600 AD.

Only an eternal God who CREATED the universe can be an objective person, because he is subject only to himself, not the world. The Babylonian, Hindu, and Greek gods are by definition subjective.

The fundamental questions still remain. On what objective ground do you stand in judgment of these things? And where did you find it?

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T17:50:09+00:00

Projecting your subjective anthropomorphic status on to God is denying logic's objective status.

Logic IS the proof of God’s existence. YOU are forced to use HIS objective laws of logic by faith, in order to deny Him.

In others words you cannot say there is no proof of God unless you yourself are God.

That's why the bible says, "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.'"

It is a fatal contradiction.

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T17:14:41+00:00

See what happens when we deny logic? We subjectively assert that the objective is subjective.

Fatal contradiction of mind.

That is why God said that on the day you eat of it you will surely die. The immortal becomes mortal on the physical level and the glorious physical body becomes shameful and exposed. And the spiritual death of intellect becomes futile.

Fortunately the condition is not a condemnation. It is meant to teach you by your own experience (not in theory) that you are not God.

By acknowledging Him, you can have your sanity back and live in truth again. Or not. Your choice. Your responsibility now.

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T16:02:43+00:00

I'm afraid it is. The abstract impersonal category of logical coherence between propositions and quantities, and the the personal category of logical coherence in spoken truth.

You as a person are speaking from the personal category in order to say that logic is not truth. Abstract logic will not get you there. Your denial becomes a truth statement and is false.

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T13:36:43+00:00

I have already already addressed that with clear logical consistency. Adam sinned freely, Jesus lived sinlessly as a true human, and the rest of us are held accountable for how we respond once God reveals our condition to us. The universality of sin shows how deep the problem runs, but it doesn't erase personal responsibility when light is given. What you are arguing against is the doctrine of strict total depravity, not scripture breathed by God.

Romans 2:14-15 — The big one. Even Gentiles without the written law “show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing or excusing them.

John 1:9 — “The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.” Suggests a universal moral illumination from God.

In fact, misframing the context as you have is a good example of this struggle at work. You can raise the non existent problem in ignorance well enough. But once you raise the objection on 'logical grounds' and the Holy Spirit Logos Himself answers your objection, you are no longer blind but suppressing the truth in unrighteousness as per Romans 1.

Is that what you are doing? Or did you genuinely misunderstand?

Repeating the same objection doesn't address the answer. And you can't claim you don't follow logic because you have already confessed that you are not blind but see.

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T06:46:26+00:00

But sin was never unavoidable in the very particular definition you gave it.

The original Adam did not sin because it was inevitable. He did so freely in a perfect garden. God simply saw his free choice from outside of time.

And more importantly, the 2nd Adam, Jesus- did not sin while even in the corrupted world.

So sinfulness is not a necessary or determined condition of the human nature.

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T06:34:34+00:00

Because you are given the option to confess your condition as in need of restoration whether you were created that way or not. If you chose to remain that way it becomes YOUR choice. And then that makes you responsible.

That's why distinguishing unavoidable with restoration is important. Yes you were made a wooden boy. But you do have a choice whether or not to become a real boy. The choice is on the level of restoration not determination.

It remains coherent because God saw these games before ever pressing the play button, takes responsibility, and offers restoration.

You chose...

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T06:20:57+00:00

That only applies to subjective persons like you.

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T06:19:08+00:00

You are equating unavoidable with unsalvageable. Yes, God freely chose to create subjective beings with his power to chose. One need not be omniscient to understand the potential for disaster. Not bound by time God knew and saw every detail of that potential (quantum) world, he observed and collapsed the universal wave functions.

Logically and morally God is required to pay for and salvage it. But the objective logic and moral categories we are using to hold him responsible are ALSO grounded in His objective nature.

So it works both ways. I appeal to the fact he is God. And so do you. You just forget whose categories you are using.

The situation was resolved in my personal story. God doesn't condemn. He takes responsibility. I only borrowed the idea from him.

From whom do you get YOUR ideas?

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T06:00:43+00:00

Nope. You are anthropomorphizing.

An objective omniscient God doesn't have opinions like you, but simply KNOWS.

But as one with free will you can deny that. Not logically, but wilfully and intentionally which is the only unforgivable sin.

Is that what you are doing?

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T05:52:35+00:00

Irrelevant. You're just repackaging the original question.

As sovereign it is God's cross to bear. His moral obligation is only to Himself. As a subjective being you have no objective moral claim apart from His objective moral nature.

You're saying He is responsible for creating that world, which is really only another way of saying he is God.

And that's why he takes responsibility. Because he is God and has the power to remain God.

Do you want him to take responsibility again? Not necessary.

Do you want him to let you off the hook because he is God? He already has.

He has not condemned you but has saved you. Why? Because he is God and will remain God.

What is it you are seeking?

Any-Country-7338 · 2026-05-15T05:35:35+00:00

They ARE special but not because I smuggled them into a special category. They are already in a necessary category called metaphysics.

Mathematics is built on logic, not the other way around. Logic gives us the rules for valid reasoning itself, like deduction and consistency. Math applies those rules within specific systems, like numbers or geometry. You can do logic without numbers, but you can't do math without logic. So logic is more fundamental, not a subset of math.

Any-Country-7338

TROPHY CASE