Loving God?

[Bhs Crew]

This assumes several things. First it assumes that God exists. This is not a discussion on whether or not God exists. I just have a couple of questions.
"How do we know God is kind, loving, and just?"
Going off of the Bible it is hard to believe that he is. If a person had enough power to do most of the things that God did in the Bible, we would consider him a monster who should be put to death. However when God does them it is ok because God's actions are just. If the only reason we know that God is loving and just is because he told us that he is loving and just, why should we believe him?

It makes much more sense to follow God because he is all powerful and will punish you if you don't. In this case my question is,
"If god is all powerful, why does he care if people worship him?"
You would think that if he is an all powerfull force he wouldn't be bothered as to whether we worshiped him or not.

Again all this is assuming that what is in the Bible is true and that God does exist exactly as it says there.

[Havard]

I don't think it would be possible to give a remotely complete answer to these questions in a few parargraphs (okay maybe AoA can :lol: ), so I'm just going to make a comment or two.

Read C.S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain" This book directly tackles some of these very issues, and does an infinitely better job than I could ever do.

Also, one aspect to your questions is a little problematic. Assuming there is an omnipotent Creator of everything, the very concepts of good, bad, justice, love, etc. would all depend upon Him. So, good is whatever He wants it to be.

Finally, the Judeo-Christian belief is that God did not need anyone to love or serve him. The belief is that God created humans in order to share his wealth of love with them, and gave them a choice in sharing their love with Him. There are many instances of God smiting rebellious humans in Scripture, but the same stories say that it was their decision to rebel from God.

Well, that was my two "copper" :uhhuh:

[Bhs Crew]

Also, one aspect to your questions is a little problematic. Assuming there is an omnipotent Creator of everything, the very concepts of good, bad, justice, love, etc. would all depend upon Him. So, good is whatever He wants it to be.

There are many instances of God smiting rebellious humans in Scripture, but the same stories say that it was their decision to rebel from God.

:

If the very concepts of Good etc are whatever he wants it to be, then why are many of the actions he takes in the bible actions that would be considered unjust or evil if done today?

I realize that it was people's decision to rebel from God, but if God is all powerful then why does he care if people rebel? It was their choice to rebel but it was his choice to slaughter them.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Here we go again :p.. I was enjoying the relative tranquility of the off topics, but I suppose one more thread of substance can't hurt :uhhuh:. I'll offer some argumentation.

This assumes several things. First it assumes that God exists. This is not a discussion on whether or not God exists. I just have a couple of questions.


Ok, we'll start off by assuming the existance of God. What other attributes would you give this God?


"If god is all powerful, why does he care if people worship him?"
You would think that if he is an all powerfull force he wouldn't be bothered as to whether we worshiped him or not.


You are correct, God need not be worshipped, as nothing can be added to the perfection of God. Yet, this is where the human dimension comes in. When we "worship" God, we place ourselves in a certain posture before God. Thus, we get into the habit of seeing ourselves as we are - creatures under God, and make that relational connection from our standpoint. God is in and through all things, yet we must have the proper disposition of recieving his presence.


Again all this is assuming that what is in the Bible is true and that God does exist exactly as it says there.

We need not use the sacred scriptures as a reference in this - we can approach it by means of reason. Let's first discuss the mode of creation. If God is a perfect, eternally subsisting entity, why need there be any creation - as shown by our existence? If God is complete, how can there be incompleteness? This is impossible without the attribute of God being a "personal" God. Some say they believe in God (some studies show that over 90% of people believe in some kind of God), but God is a "force", somewhat akin to what we see in star wars. If this were so, there could be no creation, no "us", as since he is complete already, his completemness cannot spawn incompleteness. There must be an attribute of volition in God, to create something that is apart from himself. So, thus we have a "personal" God. What then of love? If creation of temporality is not enough to demonstrate the Love of God (as creation cannot be derived of hate), than we must see what he does with creation.
This brings us to counter arguments about the "cosmic sadist", as many believe that every tragedy is "God's fault". Ironically, these are the same people who ignore God when things go well, and/or hope he doesn't "interfere" when things go according to plan. God lowered himself to mere creation as he sent his own incarnation to merge with it (Jesus), and return it to himself. So, it's through his act of creation, and "redemption". Ironically, this merging with the human aspect could not have taken place without the fall, as before the fall of the proverbial Adam and Eve, we were separate creature, not yet grafted into the Godhead through Christ's incarnation. So, we give Jesus the praise for his entering this realm.

[Xaf]

I think its funny that people get sent to hell to suffer all eternity, when in reality if god is omnipotent that means he would have had to create that person and that person is in fact part of him(because an omnipotent being is everything all at once). That means that a part of god did all those sins that person commited and then he sent a part of himself to hell.

Therefore are all powerfull and loving God is really just a masochist.

[Booms]

So, good is whatever He wants it to be.

But then along the same line of thought, aren't the innate morals and ethics we have today of God's choosing? If God is allows us to realize what is "good" and what is "bad," and we think that the acts he performed in the Bible seem "bad," isn't God telling us that those acts were bad?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If the very concepts of Good etc are whatever he wants it to be,


Good and Evil are not fully known to humanity per se - as Jesus said "no-one us good but your Father in heaven". Concepts of Good and Evil change according to culture. The emphasis is to be on imbibing the Spirit of God, who will recreate the inner self according to the "ultimate good".


then why are many of the actions he takes in the bible actions that would be considered unjust or evil if done today?


Humanity has the opportunity to mature with each passing age, and their understanding of the good with it. In regard to the old testament, it was the law of the land to live by the sword. Knowledge of God is limited by our own capacities. Hence, his dealings with the israelites included their culture. If we die by natural causes, or by the sword, we still die. What is most important is one's "spiritual health". As we've seen in Braveheart "every man dies, but not every man really lives". When Jehova ordered cannan to be "cleansed", it was symbolic of destroying the idols that prevented their focus on the true God. In short, God works in and through culture to affect the understanding of a people.
These days, we have discovered through time and experience better ways to live. Thus, God takes a different approach, as his coming was, explained in scripture, was "when the time was ripe".


I realize that it was people's decision to rebel from God,


This needs some further qualification. Sometimes it's not our choice per se, but a natural disposition that's gleaned from our state of "original sin". But yes, one can rebel from God when in posession of the knowledge of God.


but if God is all powerful then why does he care if people rebel? It was their choice to rebel but it was his choice to slaughter them.

People are already born into a state of innate rebellion. This is why Jesus came. In order to understand fully the justice of God, one must rise above the justice of the times, which can be mere humanistic machinations. Before we get into that, let's stick with the primordial issues on my last post.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I think its funny that people get sent to hell to suffer all eternity, when in reality if god is omnipotent that means he would have had to create that person and that person is in fact part of him(because an omnipotent being is everything all at once).


God cannot replicate himself. Any creation would have to be something other than God by its very nature.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

But then along the same line of thought, aren't the innate morals and ethics we have today of God's choosing?
If God is allows us to realize what is "good" and what is "bad," and we think that the acts he performed in the Bible seem "bad," isn't God telling us that those acts were bad?

Again, "good and bad" are not innate concepts. They are human concepts. Even nietzsche figured this out. Rather, there is "in God", and "outside God", for lack of a better term.

[Xaf]

God cannot replicate himself. Any creation would have to be something other than God by its very nature.
Well then god is not omnipotent or all powerfull if there are things outside himself.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well then god is not omnipotent or all powerfull if there are things outside himself.

Did ye get my post? That's where the "love" aspect comes in. Otherwise, it would not make sense. Regarding the mechanics of it, God continues to sustain things in their being and existence, yet they do not share his essence per se.

[Xaf]

Did ye get my post? That's where the "love" aspect comes in. Otherwise, it would not make sense. Regarding the mechanics of it, God continues to sustain things in their being and existence, yet the do not share his essence per se. Well an omnipotent being controls everything, and knows everything and is everything. I like to break things down to the basics. No point in arguing about the bible when at its very core things dont make sense. You cant have a god unfallable when man is. Unless you are saying god can contridict himself. And if that is so, there is no point even trying to guess what he would want. The bible could be a complete crock of bs to trick you into him sending you to hell.

*edit woops just realized i sort of did exactly what the original poster didnt want.

[Havard]

I think its funny that people get sent to hell to suffer all eternity, when in reality if god is omnipotent that means he would have had to create that person and that person is in fact part of him(because an omnipotent being is everything all at once). That means that a part of god did all those sins that person commited and then he sent a part of himself to hell.

Therefore are all powerfull and loving God is really just a masochist.

Look at it like this:

You don't need to have children, but you decide to have some because you would like to share your love and create new life. You could A) keep them in complete isolation their whole lives so that they never learn what evil is, or B) raise them in the real world and eventually let them decide how to live their own lives. Which is more loving? I would argue B. If you choose A, your kids will have "happy lives" in a very shallow sense, but without ever experiencing a moral decision, what has a person gained in living?


But then along the same line of thought, aren't the innate morals and ethics we have today of God's choosing? If God is allows us to realize what is "good" and what is "bad," and we think that the acts he performed in the Bible seem "bad," isn't God telling us that those acts were bad?

I don't think so, because that assumes that what you believe is always a result of God's nudging. God may have created morals, but He lets you decide what to believe.

[Xaf]

Look at it like this:

You don't need to have children, but you decide to have some because you would like to share your love and create new life. You could A) keep them in complete isolation their whole lives so that they never learn what evil is, or B) raise them in the real world and eventually let them decide how to live their own lives. Which is more loving? I would argue B. If you choose A, your kids will have "happy lives" in a very shallow sense, but without ever experiencing a moral decision, what has a person gained in living?

That analogy doesnt have anything to do with what i said. My problem is that anything these children would be exposed to would be of gods creating also. Any moral decision they make god would already have predicted and God would know their decision. All the variables were made by god and are of god.

[Essex]

what I think xaf is getting at is why would god set people up to fail? Why would he allow for things to exisit that could be a trap for people to wind up in hell. (see i'm not the only one thinking of hell)

plus I would argue that if you had the power to be rid of evil (like god has the power to do) but you choose to let evil exisit then your aren't being the best parent.

But that's just what i'm reading from these posts not much of this is my own

[Havard]

Any moral decision they make god would already have predicted and God would know their decision. All the variables were made by god and are of god.

You're assuming God made us like a computer program, with all variables in His control. If He has given us free will, then we have control over some variables. Further, you're assuming there is no difference between knowing an outcome and causing the outcome.

what I think xaf is getting at is why would god set people up to fail?

Because without choice you can't succeed, either. By getting rid of all evil, you're not letting people make their own decisions, you're making them for them.

EDIT: BTW, Essex, whatever happened to the leg-hair-shaving thread, I wanted to put a few more cents into that one! :lol:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Grr to RPGforums for not loading the reply I just wrote :rant:. I almost filled a whole page. You'll have to settle for the abridged version..

Well an omnipotent being controls everything, and knows everything and is everything. I like to break things down to the basics. No point in arguing about the bible when at its very core things dont make sense.


Indeed. This is why I strove to steer the conversation along more reasoned lines so that the audience here may better understand.
As for omnipotent, this needs further definition.

Looks like you believe that God and the temporal continuum share the same essence. Thus, your masochistic outlook of God causing all the evil etc stems from him controlling all events - after else - who else could it be? This is problematic. Creatre aspects - like humanity, animals, and the basic elements, are "contained within God", but do not share God's essence and property of eternity and simplicity. Indeed, we cannot rightly say that God has the property of existence, as any property is known only in relation to its opposite, and God transcends language.
Your last comment I found mildly amusing (forgive me). God cannot be a masochist, or as I referred to as a "cosmic sadist". This is to be seen in what we know of God's essence. Your God reminds me of Lloth, the Drow spider queen as seen in R.A. Salvatore's Drizzt books. Her servants would torture prisoners, feed them healing potions, and torture them again. Perhaps paralells can be made to this world - full of its joys and sorrows. Yet, this is not our God. This behaviour demands a being which is not consistent in essence and purpose. Humans can be like this - as we are changeable, not eternal. Any distinction or differential in the Being of God would omit God from the property of eternity and simplicity, and thus negate his being. In eternity, there is no change, or even thinking as we know it. God simply is God. A God which is composite in its "personhood" - such as the act of torture - is not a stable being, and thus could not exist in its own self. If this were true, no temporal reality would exist, as without an eternal artificer to set it in motion, it could not begin to exist.
Essentially, your position comes from "the heart", and we can deal with that after you're convinced of the philosophical underpinnings.

[Xaf]

You're assuming God made us like a computer program, with all variables in His control. If He has given us free will, then we have control over some variables. Further, you're assuming there is no difference between knowing an outcome and causing the outcome.

There is no difference if you are omnipotent. And all variables would be in His control.

[Havard]

There is no difference if you are omnipotent. And all variables would be in His control.

There is a difference between having the power to do something and doing it. God may have the power to decide our actions, but that doesn't mean He does. According to Judaism and Christianity, He gives us control through free will.

[Bhs Crew]

Grr to RPGforums for not loading the reply I just wrote :rant:. I almost filled a whole page. You'll have to settle for the abridged version..
.

Yeah I've had that happen to me a couple times. What I do now is I select and copy everything I typed before I click on 'Submit Reply'. That way if the forums go down, I can just paste everything in another post.

[Xaf]

There is a difference between having the power to do something and doing it. God may have the power to decide our actions, but that doesn't mean He does. According to Judaism and Christianity, He gives us control through free will.
Yeah but what is free will when god controls all the variables. If there is no outside influence then every thought and action we take has to be directed by god. Saying that we have free will would be to say god is not all powerful as we would be doing something that he didnt control.

[Havard]

Yeah but what is free will when god controls all the variables. If there is no outside influence then every thought and action we take has to be directed by god. Saying that we have free will would be to say god is not all powerful as we would be doing something that he didnt control.

Relinquishing control =/= relinquishing power

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yeah but what is free will when god controls all the variables.
If there is no outside influence then every thought and action we take has to be directed by god. Saying that we have free will would be to say god is not all powerful as we would be doing something that he didnt control.

Please give a clear and technical definition of the methods of God's governance.

[Xaf]

Please give a clear and technical definition of the methods of God's governance.
Well i dont really know if a god can exist. Rather outside my ability to understand. But what i have been told numerous times is that the christian god is an omnipotent being, which the dictionary describes as one with infinite power. I therefore consider one with infinite power to be omniscient and omnipresent. And to me this completely contridicts many things said in the bible.

[Booms]

I'm pretty sure I see what Xaf is getting at.

Look at it this way:

We are living in a closed system. Nothing is coming into it or going out of it while its under God's control. And, in this system, God has to controll all of the variables, for he is omnipotent. If there is a "renegade" variable out of God's control, that would contradict his omnipotence.

So, if God is in control of everything, free will is an illusion. We may think that we're deciding whether or not to purchase that shiny new car, but because God has been controlling all factors of our lives from the beginning, and therefore has been controlling every single person and living entity to a certain extent (because he know how each individual will react to each minute detail in their life), how is it that we really have free will?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well i dont really know if a god can exist.


If I read you correctly, it would seem that you have a fairly enmeshed belief that God is in control of this world.


Rather outside my ability to understand. But what i have been told numerous times is that the christian god is an omnipotent being, which the dictionary describes as one with infinite power.


Ahh, I mentioned in my post that didnt go through ( :rant: ) that the websters or oxford dictionary are impoverished when dealing with these things. Terms require critical definiton to get things right.


I therefore consider one with infinite power to be omniscient and omnipresent.


Yes, these attributes also coincide. Yet, the dynamics of how this is possible need to be understood more clearly. It's not just about - "all knoing, all seeing, etc". What does it mean to know and see? Could it be different for God than it is for a human? Of course it is, because a human and being and God cannot be compared in terms of powers. If you say that God controls "all the variables", thus influencing all human activity, than you must demonstrate how you believe this to be so.


And to me this completely contridicts many things said in the bible.

That God is "all powerful"? Of course he is. But, this world exists because of his love - without love, there would be no possibility of creation of temporality. BTW, what bible verses do you find troublesome?

[Havard]

Booms, Xaf:

I get what you're saying but I disagree with your model. I believe God allows variables to be in our control (free will.)

*IMPORTANT!*: Free will does NOT take away from omnipotence. Why? Because free will is about control, not power. These are different matters. God has the power to determine our lives, but whether He uses that power or not is another matter.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'm pretty sure I see what Xaf is getting at.

Look at it this way:

We are living in a closed system. Nothing is coming into it or going out of it while its under God's control. And, in this system, God has to controll all of the variables, for he is omnipotent. If there is a "renegade" variable out of God's control, that would contradict his omnipotence.


Yes, I knew what he was referring to. Excellent point, I struggled with this very issue for a good year or so. I'm very well aware that every action has its influences. Also, causality is a determining factor in the universe, which in turn influences its subjects, inculding ourselves. Scripture also says in proverbs that "the heart of a man is directed as a watercourse". So then, what of free will?

I'll say that our will is a free will, but within a system. This is called "fate". Yet, fate differs from desitny. Desitny is that which God wishes for you in your creation. It is his best plan for your life. Fate is those options of action that are open to you by "who you are". The ideal is to have fate and destiny as one. Within the temporal continuum, we are "moved", or infulenced by creature powers - that affect our desires. Our ultimate desire is for the good, but this can take many forms in our world. Our preference of desire is conditioned by early childhood preference and experience. We thus are "slaves" to the world and its elements, as they offer us fulfillment in our needs. Yet, by their nature, they do not fulfill that which God can fill.
At this stage, it is my belief that God's love enables free will, apart from the "variables". The Holy Spirit, when imbibed in a human soul, loosens and can eventually (or immediately) release one from the options of one's personal fate, into a higher calling. This we can call being ruled by your "Lord", which is Jesus operating in you by means of his sprit, which is in and through the earth now.



So, if God is in control of everything, free will is an illusion. We may think that we're deciding whether or not to purchase that shiny new car, but because God has been controlling all factors of our lives from the beginning, and therefore has been controlling every single person and living entity to a certain extent (because he know how each individual will react to each minute detail in their life), how is it that we really have free will?

I'll qualify that by adding that our will - such as to buy a shiny car - is ruled by our "desire for God". The actions we take depend on our positioning in regard to God. Hence, those who hate God will choose things in the world - whatever that may be, and those who love God will be "ruled" by this desire to choose the good.

[Havard]

I think I'll just quit and let AoA handle this thread. :lol:

[Xaf]

I'll say that our will is a free will, but within a system. This is called "fate". Yet, fate differs from desitny. Desitny is that which God wishes for you in your creation. It is his best plan for your life. Fate is those options of action that are open to you by "who you are". The ideal is to have fate and destiny as one. Within the temporal continuum, we are "moved", or infulenced by creature powers - that affect our desires. Our ultimate desire is for the good, but this can take many forms in our world. Our preference of desire is conditioned by early childhood preference and experience. We thus are "slaves" to the world and its elements, as they offer us fulfillment in our needs. Yet, by their nature, they do not fulfill that which God can fill.
At this stage, it is my belief that God's love enables free will, apart from the "variables". The Holy Spirit, when imbibed in a human soul, loosens and can eventually (or immediately) release one from the options of one's personal fate, into a higher calling. This we can call being ruled by your "Lord", which is Jesus operating in you by means of his sprit, which is in and through the earth now.




I'll qualify that by adding that our will - such as to buy a shiny car - is ruled by our "desire for God". The actions we take depend on our positioning in regard to God. Hence, those who hate God will choose things in the world - whatever that may be, and those who love God will be "ruled" by this desire to choose the good.

What exactly are the proofs of all this explanation. It sounds sort of like an anime story line.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Xaf - Please state the exact nuances you require further explanation of. I'll be back later - going to see "Troy".

[Eiger]

God cannot replicate himself. Any creation would have to be something other than God by its very nature.
Now this I find very interesting. Of course we don't know that God can't replicate himself. It's possible that he can and we just don't have our understanding of him down. But the concept of a single omnipotent God just doesn't allow that.

But think for a second what things would be like if he did replicate himself. And the two of them disagreed or started doing things without communicating. Or does that not make sense in that each would always know what the other is up to.

Anyway, this one's kinda fun to play with. Especially if each had different "chosen people" - that could get good. Especially if they were neighbors like Israel and Syria...

[Essex]

What exactly are the proofs of all this explanation. It sounds sort of like an anime story line.
actually all this free will talk is reminding me of the Matrix.

and Eiger that's a good point and I may very well use it in my story lol

[Bhs Crew]

Now this I find very interesting. Of course we don't know that God can't replicate himself. It's possible that he can and we just don't have our understanding of him down. But the concept of a single omnipotent God just doesn't allow that.

But think for a second what things would be like if he did replicate himself. And the two of them disagreed or started doing things without communicating. Or does that not make sense in that each would always know what the other is up to.

Anyway, this one's kinda fun to play with. Especially if each had different "chosen people" - that could get good. Especially if they were neighbors like Israel and Syria...

Then you get back to the polytheistic religions. Hindu, Ancienct Greece, Rome, Egypt etc. Many gods of limited (but still quite impressive) power. Each one with their own chosen people and and countries.

[Eiger]

Then you get back to the polytheistic religions. Hindu, Ancienct Greece, Rome, Egypt etc. Many gods of limited (but still quite impressive) power. Each one with their own chosen people and and countries.
Not quite - at least in this example. The polytheistic gods were always messing with each other - but they weren't each omnipotent.

I'm referring to two all knowing all seeing all powerful gods who both have the same role. Kinda like having co-CEOs of a corporation, but knowing what the other's doing at all times. Would one become dominant over time? Could they both be "good" or stay good? Would they "arm wrestle" - I can see one raising mountains while the other erodes them at the same time. Would they be able to work together for a common purpose?

[Havard]

Not quite - at least in this example. The polytheistic gods were always messing with each other - but they weren't each omnipotent.

I'm referring to two all knowing all seeing all powerful gods who both have the same role. Kinda like having co-CEOs of a corporation, but knowing what the other's doing at all times. Would one become dominant over time? Could they both be "good" or stay good? Would they "arm wrestle" - I can see one raising mountains while the other erodes them at the same time. Would they be able to work together for a common purpose?

This question is a paradoxical (aka "nonsense") question because by definition, omnipotence means having all power. If the first God, "Creator", is truly omnipotent, then Creator can destroy his replica, call him "Created." If Created is omnipotent, nothing can destroy him. Thus, Creator cannot "replicate."

Now, I know what you'll say... "If Creator can't replicate, then Creator isn't really omnipotent." No... Take the classic example of a "nonsense" question: "Can God make a boulder that is too heavy for him to pick up?" Of course not. That's not a limitation on his power, it's just a paradoxical limitation.

EDIT: by "nonsense", I mean no offense, that really is the term used by philosophers

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger - God CANNOT replicate himself - even Bhs hinted at his understanding. I also found your wording "of course" silly. Why is this so? Essentially, if there were several duplicates of the same God, or put in another way, if there were many gods of equal stature, they would be the same God. There can be only one "ultimate" source, there can be only a single perfection from which all other perfections stem from. Our concept of "greatest" allows for this. Eternity and eternal simplicity cannot be divided - there are no lines of demarcation.
Such speculation I find childish. You'd be well advised to stop thinking up fairy takes and wondering about theoretical constructs like "the chosen", and start facing this issue head on - as one day you will be forced to.

[Booms]

Eiger - God CANNOT replicate himself - even Bhs hinted at his understanding. I also found your wording "of course" silly. Why is this so? Essentially, if there were several duplicates of the same God, or put in another way, if there were many gods of equal stature, they would be the same God. There can be only one "ultimate" source, there can be only a single perfection from which all other perfections stem from. Our concept of "greatest" allows for this. Eternity and eternal simplicity cannot be divided - there are no lines of demarcation.
Such speculation I find childish. You'd be well advised to stop thinking up fairy takes and wondering about theoretical constructs like "the chosen", and start facing this issue head on - as one day you will be forced to.


I agree with you that there has to be only one perfection from which the others stem from, but the fact that they have stemmed from something does not make them imperfect. They are replicas, exactly the same in every way.

And our concept of greatness stems from the fact that everything in the material world is imperfect, thus allowing greatness to exist. We as humans are fundamentaly flawed, and so are some of our concepts when applied to something such as "God."

And, as a side note, sentences like your last one are the ones that give people the impression that you have a "holier than thou" attitude.

[Eiger]

Eiger - God CANNOT replicate himself - even Bhs hinted at his understanding. I also found your wording "of course" silly. Why is this so? Essentially, if there were several duplicates of the same God, or put in another way, if there were many gods of equal stature, they would be the same God. There can be only one "ultimate" source, there can be only a single perfection from which all other perfections stem from. Our concept of "greatest" allows for this. Eternity and eternal simplicity cannot be divided - there are no lines of demarcation.
Such speculation I find childish. You'd be well advised to stop thinking up fairy takes and wondering about theoretical constructs like "the chosen", and start facing this issue head on - as one day you will be forced to.
You guys are so funny. So so serious that you can't even entertain some silly thoughts for a few moments. In my first paragraph I said that "But the concept of a single omnipotent God just doesn't allow that." So, duh, I'm aware what omnipotence means.

The second paragraph starts with: "But think for a second what things would be like if he did replicate himself." So basically, I'm going with your concept that he can't replicate himself and saying that just for fun lets play around with this for a moment and have some fun with it. But no.... Too too serious for play. Find it childish all you want - but just like in learning, once you stop playing, you start dying.

But on a more serious note. You don't know that God can or can't replicate himself. You have no way to verify it. It's your belief. And that's all and well. But saying that it CANNOT happen is ludicrous.

Having multiple gods of the same stature be the same god isn't correct. There could be. And there doesn't have to be only one perfect entity either. There could be bunches of them. Perfect doesn't equal 1. It could, but not necessarily. What if they were equally great and no "est" applied in this case?

For that matter, there could be a federation of gods, each one having a district. They split responsibilities by galaxy. One for our galaxy and one for the next one over, etc. And maybe they switch positions from time to time - who wants to listen to the same cultures over and over - boring... ;)

[Pawn]

Why should god be limited by paradoxes? Just because human minds cant comprehend it doesnt mean she cant do it. I believe that an omnipotent god can create a boulder too heavy to lift. How and why i have no damn clue but that such a god can i have no doubt.

[Havard]

Why should god be limited by paradoxes? Just because human minds cant comprehend it doesnt mean she cant do it. I believe that an omnipotent god can create a boulder too heavy to lift. How and why i have no damn clue but that such a god can i have no doubt.

You have no doubt about something but you don't know how or why? Wow. And I thought I had faith. :uhhuh:

[DeadSquirrel]

You're not only assuming God exists in this post.... but you're assuming that the "God" would be truthfull to what Christians claim him to be... which is a bit saddening :(.
Out of all the religions that were available, it has to be the christian god... one of the most boring versions of it.

While I'm a complete atheist, I prefer the idea of a God such as Zeus. (Or today's equivalent of Beckham :evil: ).
Being a worshipped and powerfull being, but that goes through the same life as us mere humans.
Having a wife, cheating on her, making use of his powers to exploit beautifull human women, using his power to let out his frusteration on the masses of mortals.... funfun! ^^

Whole fascinating stories were weaved around this "God", rivalising with today's best soap operas....
The only excitement in Chritistianity is watching Jean-Paul II and wondering if his next breath is his last. :evil: (okok, that was mean hehe, but I rather not be serious about things such as religion :innocent: )

It's a bit obvious that if God existed, he'd be a vile horrible creature that takes pleasure in watching his creatures turn as vile as himself.
He'd be the type of guy to roll dice in order to choose who shall die next, and laugh joyfully when it turns out to be a young very generous single mother of 6, that works extremely hard to make the life of her children bareable.

But some people prefer regarding him as "just", and then saying that his ways are unconcievable for us humans... heh.

Edit::
Ah yes, in response to why God would need people to worship him:
Where do you think he gets all his Mana from?

[Essex]

Edit::
Ah yes, in response to why God would need people to worship him:
Where do you think he gets all his Mana from?

that's fine so long as he doesn't have to tap me.


Plus I thought it was obvious that Eiger was joking around then some people picked up and talked about it.

[Havard]

The only excitement in Chritistianity is watching Jean-Paul II and wondering if his next breath is his last. :evil: (okok, that was mean hehe, but I rather not be serious about things such as religion :innocent: )

You might not take this seriously, but the things you say can still be offensive to others.



It's a bit obvious that if God existed, he'd be a vile horrible creature that takes pleasure in watching his creatures turn as vile as himself.


Wow. Do you have any idea how condescending that is?

[Essex]

i understand making fun of the pope can be upsetting but really you need to go after Leno, Letterman and O'Brien before him.

Secondly its his opinion, he stated he's an atheist so it's probably more a reflection of his views on humanity

[Havard]

I don't mind his having an opinion, it's the way he put it. Saying "it's a bit obvious that everything you believe is totally wrong" isn't exactly a respectful way of giving your opinion, it's simply insulting.

EDIT: I think it's tasteless to rip on the Pope, and it's a shame that Leno and Letterman do it, but it's doubly tasteless to suggest that his failing health is the only interesting thing about my religion.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I agree with you that there has to be only one perfection from which the others stem from, but the fact that they have stemmed from something does not make them imperfect. They are replicas, exactly the same in every way.


Yet, I mentioned that if there were replicas, containing the same degree of perfection, they would necessarily have to be the same essence. All of them would be one.


And our concept of greatness stems from the fact that everything in the material world is imperfect, thus allowing greatness to exist.


If it were gleaned from the material world only, we would have no notion of the pure, or the absolute. It begins in the material world, but it takes us to the incorporeal.


We as humans are fundamentaly flawed, and so are some of our concepts when applied to something such as "God."


That is a foolish statement. Reason is immutible, much like 1+1 will always = 2.


And, as a side note, sentences like your last one are the ones that give people the impression that you have a "holier than thou" attitude.

Likewise, sentances like the ones you've just wrote would give a thinking person the notion that you're a skeptic who is unwilling to use his reason to arrive at truth. If you can't handle this reasoning, it's your own problem.

[Essex]

you know my and other's skeptism (sp) may be our freedom. AoA just what if all you belive is wrong? What if when you die all you do is die and eventually turn to dust, then you've spent your whole life in this religion confinded and constrained to follow a set path in life only to have spent your short time on this planet in vain?

Gratned the same can be said for me what if I'm wrong and ya know go to hell... I'm just saying that being a skeptic may not be all that bad and it may not be a problem at all.

[Bhs Crew]

I always figured that omnipotence was in itself a paradox. I guess it goes fine as long as you believe anything can be truly pure or absolute.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You guys are so funny. So so serious that you can't even entertain some silly thoughts for a few moments.


Some topics requre more work and serious intent. We get enough silly thoughts on your other threads, and in some of your posts.


In my first paragraph I said that "But the concept of a single omnipotent God just doesn't allow that." So, duh, I'm aware what omnipotence means.

The second paragraph starts with: "But think for a second what things would be like if he did replicate himself." So basically, I'm going with your concept that he can't replicate himself and saying that just for fun lets play around with this for a moment and have some fun with it. But no.... Too too serious for play. Find it childish all you want - but just like in learning, once you stop playing, you start dying.



Fair enough.


But on a more serious note. You don't know that God can or can't replicate himself. You have no way to verify it. It's your belief. And that's all and well. But saying that it CANNOT happen is ludicrous.


heh.. By saying that, you've just demonstrated as much assurance as I have regarding the norms of metaphysics. Unfortunately, you haven't got the drift of where this argument was going. There is "absolute assurance" that the position offered cannot be any other way. What is ludicrous is your comment of pure sophistry - thinking that "anything's possible". No Eiger, I'm sorry, but not everything is possible. We live in a system, and by means of this, we can discover the nature of that which is beyond us. Thus far, no philosopher worth his salt can think of this any other way without resorting to skepticism, which you do habitually.



Having multiple gods of the same stature be the same god isn't correct.


How could this be any other way? You still view God in terms of the definitions you would place on temoral realities.


There could be. And there doesn't have to be only one perfect entity either.


You just affirmed your denial.


There could be bunches of them. Perfect doesn't equal 1. It could, but not necessarily. What if they were equally great and no "est" applied in this case?


There is a "greatest", which is one essence. The "greatest" could indeed encompass a plethora of definition, such as attributes, but they could be recognized as one whole when put together. Thus, we have one essence. Yet, philosophy teaches us that the greater degree of perfection = the lesser degree of definition.



For that matter, there could be a federation of gods, each one having a district.


LMAO Watching alot of star treck lately? I bet you like "Q".. God is not Q. If there were indeed many gods occupying a certain station, they would necessarily have a greater God above them.


They split responsibilities by galaxy. One for our galaxy and one for the next one over, etc. And maybe they switch positions from time to time - who wants to listen to the same cultures over and over - boring... ;)



Well you did get the drift of hierarchy and rulership - but in the end, there is one to rule them all.

[Havard]

AoA just what if all you belive is wrong? What if when you die all you do is die and eventually turn to dust, then you've spent your whole life in this religion confinded and constrained to follow a set path in life only to have spent your short time on this planet in vain?

This is called "Pascal's Wager":
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

[Essex]

yes yes I know all about Pascal's Wager (trust me it always pops up in these) but AoA has always denounced Pascal's Wager.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Why should god be limited by paradoxes?


Paradoxes are theoretical constructs that have one premise in dialectical opposition to another. For every paradox, a third element must enter the equation to solve it. The only paradoxes we see are those in our own minds, and it would be a mistake to limit God by our mode of thinking. Thus, as Dionysius mentions in his mystical theology, we must come to the limits of our reasoning power to ascertain the truth. However, by that time, we would have, by means of reason, carve out a tunnel that can only travel in one direction.


Just because human minds cant comprehend it doesnt mean she cant do it. I believe that an omnipotent god can create a boulder too heavy to lift. How and why i have no damn clue but that such a god can i have no doubt.

Who would lift the boulder? This kind of argument is futile. God is not defined by, or limited to, mechanics. God contains all things in himself (or herself, if you want to be PC - God is gender inclusive). Measurement is a mode of limitation and fixation. To say that finite matter could be defined in infinite terms would negate its very concept (boulder to heavy to be lifted - would not be a boulder).

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You're not only assuming God exists in this post.... but you're assuming that the "God" would be truthfull to what Christians claim him to be... which is a bit saddening :(.


Don't come on this thread to start spewing gobbleygook. The very first post by Bhs Crew - the thread creator - said that we would begin discussion by assuming God exists. What we have attempted to do since then (at least for my part) was to inquire into the nature of this God. Re-read the thread.


Out of all the religions that were available, it has to be the christian god... one of the most boring versions of it.


I'll let you make up your own god, how's that?


It's a bit obvious that if God existed, he'd be a vile horrible creature that takes pleasure in watching his creatures turn as vile as himself.
He'd be the type of guy to roll dice in order to choose who shall die next, and laugh joyfully when it turns out to be a young very generous single mother of 6, that works extremely hard to make the life of her children bareable.


I'm not sure that replying to someone of your capacities would be of any use. The best I can offer is to re-read the thread, as we've touched on the "masochistic god" issue earlier.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

you know my and other's skeptism (sp) may be our freedom. AoA just what if all you belive is wrong? What if when you die all you do is die and eventually turn to dust, then you've spent your whole life in this religion confinded and constrained to follow a set path in life only to have spent your short time on this planet in vain?


You will always think like this, or entertain this kind of doubt, if you fail to embrace reason. There is absolute assurance, it cannot be any other way. Seriously, discard this skeptical and emotional bull-****. You're always whining about how Rev. Phelps is saying this or that, and how you're scared of hell, or whatever? When are you going to get out of this cycle? There ARE ANSWERS.


Gratned the same can be said for me what if I'm wrong and ya know go to hell... I'm just saying that being a skeptic may not be all that bad and it may not be a problem at all.

Well there you go - I didnt even read this till now lol.. There's hope yet :uhhuh:.

[Essex]

well I'm glad you toned it down there at the end lol. I should clairfy though.. when I'm whining about these things in religion I'm doing so just to prove my point as to why I don't belive in it, not that I would belive in it if it weren't for those things.

Even if Christanity was totally accepting of everything I do I wouldn't have faith because I don't think any of its true. Now that doesnt' mean I dislike those who do think it's true, I just point out the problems that affect me personally.

I don't worry about going to hell because I'm not going to go hell because hell doesn't exisist.

You talk a lot about reason but if you go off straight logical reason then no one in their right mind would belive the bible because it's a bunch of fairy tales, they may teach morals and the like but they are the same as any Greek myth in my mind. It doesn't take reason it takes faith which I don't have.

I'm sorry if i've ever come off sounding like I'm whining because I'm not, I was just always staing my problems with the religion as a person on the outside not as a person on the outside wanting in.

[Eiger]

We need only view your threads and posts to see "silly thoughts", and there is a limit to how much humor of that sort can be imbibed in one day. Some topics requre more work and serious intent.



Fair enough.



heh.. By saying that, you've just demonstrated as much assurance as I have regarding the norms of metaphysics. Unfortunately, you haven't got the drift of where this argument was going. There is "absolute assurance" that the position offered cannot be any other way. What is ludicrous is your comment of pure sophistry - thinking that "anything's possible". No Eiger, I'm sorry, but not everything is possible. We live in a system, and by means of this, we can discover the nature of that which is beyond us. Thus far, no philosopher worth his salt can think of this any other way without resorting to skepticism, which you do habitually.



How could this be any other way? You still view God in terms of the definitions you would place on temoral realities.



You just affirmed your denial.


There could be bunches of them. Perfect doesn't equal 1. It could, but not necessarily. What if they were equally great and no "est" applied in this case? [/color]

There is a "greatest", which is one essence. The "greatest" could indeed encompass a plethora of definition, such as attributes, but they could be recognized as one whole when put together. Thus, we have one essence. Yet, philosophy teaches us that the greater degree of perfection = the lesser degree of definition.



LMAO Watching alot of star treck lately? I bet you like "Q".. God is not Q. If there were indeed many gods occupying a certain station, they would necessarily have a greater God above them.



Well you did get the drift of hierarchy and rulership - but in the end, there is one to rule them all.Nah, anything's possible and silly thoughts are fun, hence I endorse them. Whose reason is immutable? Q isn't God? Since when? Q's reasoning is certainly immutable! All hail Q!

[Eiger]

I'll let you make up your own god, how's that?
Hey not fair. I wanna make up my own sets of gods, but you're not letting me. Please, please can I do one, too?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

well I'm glad you toned it down there at the end lol. I should clairfy though.. when I'm whining about these things in religion I'm doing so just to prove my point as to why I don't belive in it, not that I would belive in it if it weren't for those things.


Ok granted. Yet, we've been over this a thousand times, in many threads. What are we failing to do that your outlook is still emotionally based? I know it's a tough conversion to move away from those primal fears, but we have to maintain some objectivity here, and let the thoughts influence the emotions.


Even if Christanity was totally accepting of everything I do I wouldn't have faith because I don't think any of its true. Now that doesnt' mean I dislike those who do think it's true, I just point out the problems that affect me personally.


As I've pointed out before, faith is not in the label "christianity", but in Jesus. There is no way that I could change things for you by merely pointing out a better doctrine of life - we are what we are. The key to all this is "relationship" with God. All this philiosophy is to attempt to counter thoughts that create the negative emotions.


I don't worry about going to hell because I'm not going to go hell because hell doesn't exisist.


But you're not sure. If you were, you would not react so strongly against it.


You talk a lot about reason but if you go off straight logical reason then no one in their right mind would belive the bible because it's a bunch of fairy tales, they may teach morals and the like but they are the same as any Greek myth in my mind. It doesn't take reason it takes faith which I don't have.


Faith and reason are intertwined. Granted, I read more philiosophy texts than the Bible, but what I read in scriptures only affirms what I do in philosophy.


I'm sorry if i've ever come off sounding like I'm whining because I'm not, I was just always staing my problems with the religion as a person on the outside not as a person on the outside wanting in.

lol - well as most everyone agrees, we all have our tones. There are those who believe I'm "holier than thou", but in the end it all comes down to the actual text of the argument. If you can present your points and reply in kind, you're being honest with yourself.

[Bhs Crew]

I always found the Bible to be a nice bunch of stories but I never saw any reason why I should believe them any more then I should believe all the Greek myths and start worshiping Zues. Throughout the years depending on which part of the world you live in there are various religions and gods. All of them have some power as long as they have believers. Periodicially some of the religions and gods die off as cultures are wiped out or new gods and religions take their places. It seems odd that if God was all powerful he would only convey the message of his existance to one tiny tribe of people in the middle east. Why wait thousands of years to come down to earth and spread the message of Christianity?

I just figure if we were in India right now we would be discussing whether or not the Hindu gods exist, with some people saying of course they do for various reasons and others saying there's no proof.

[Eiger]

lol - well as most everyone agrees, we all have our tones. There are those who believe I'm "holier than thou", but in the end it all comes down to the actual text of the argument. If you can present your points and reply in kind, you're being honest with yourself.
From the comments made by others on your tone which I've read in a variety of threads - in the end it comes down to your tone rather than your points or message. In the end, people remember the bullying remarks and absolutist comments and forget most of the salient points. Speaking of immutable...

[DeadSquirrel]

You're not only assuming God exists in this post.... but you're assuming that the "God" would be truthfull to what Christians claim him to be... which is a bit saddening .
Don't come on this thread to start spewing gobbleygook. The very first post by Bhs Crew - the thread creator - said that we would begin discussion by assuming God exists. What we have attempted to do since then (at least for my part) was to inquire into the nature of this God. Re-read the thread.
Erm... seems you misunderstood me AoA.
You've been discussing of this God by using the Bible as referance. Meaning you're limiting this "god" to the christian god. That's all I'm saying.
All Bhs Crew said was that this thread assumes "God" exists... why can't this god be based on the Coran? or why can't he be Zeus? or Osiris?
What right do you have in saying that the "God" is the christian god by default?

[Havard]

All Bhs Crew said was that this thread assumes "God" exists... why can't this god be based on the Coran? or why can't he be Zeus? or Osiris?
What right do you have in saying that the "God" is the christian god by default?

AoA has every right... you should read the entire first post before you went off on him:



Again all this is assuming that what is in the Bible is true and that God does exist exactly as it says there.

[Booms]

I would have posted this yesterday night, but rpgforums.net went down before I got home (or my internet just wouldn't connect to it for some reason).

Yet, I mentioned that if there were replicas, containing the same degree of perfection, they would necessarily have to be the same essence. All of them would be one.

That doesn't refute what I said, it is just you stating what you think. Lets say that the two perfect Gods are both omnipotent. And, since God can be considered to be everything and everywhere at the same time, both of them would have to be. But that doesn't mean there can only be one of them. God isn't a physical being. The best example of how they could both exist is that if they both happened to be a mist or something along those lines. You can take two mists and place them together in the same space (if we actually did this there would be more mist than before, but thats only because actual mist has mass). The mists could both have different "personalities," or something else to distinguish them.

If because you mixed the two together and they both began to act exactly the same way, as one, it would mean the two Gods don't really have free will (for they always act the same when place in the same spot, as if they were placed into a mathematical algorithm). Then perfection wouldn't have free will, although I don't know what implications that would have on the imperfect.

If it were gleaned from the material world only, we would have no notion of the pure, or the absolute. It begins in the material world, but it takes us to the incorporeal.

Greatness gleaned 100% from the material world. Terms such as "God" and "Omnipotence" are both human attempts to describe something that we cannot. But even that which we believe to be "God" is only a creation of ideas and thoughts derived from the material world. You would be hard-pressed to show how our idea of greatness must have had an influence from something not of the material world.

And notions of pure and the absolute are easily explained by terms found only in the material world. For example, lets say you have a stream. This stream provides water for a village, and is essentially their source of life. Simply observing the stream as it is in a muddied state where the water is not healthy to drink and then seeing it when the water is clearer provides an explanation for the notion of pure. Human beings have imagination, we can make the connection from muddied -> clear and then take the next step, having the stream go from clear -> "pure."

That is a foolish statement. Reason is immutible, much like 1+1 will always = 2.

It isn't a foolish statment at all. All I say is that if you take something that is flawed and apply it to something, you may come up with flawed results or ideas.

Likewise, sentances like the ones you've just wrote would give a thinking person the notion that you're a skeptic who is unwilling to use his reason to arrive at truth. If you can't handle this reasoning, it's your own problem.

That doesn't change the fact that you come of as condescending. Not to mention you are now also implying that you know the truth and that everyone else is wrong, and have as of yet not managed to turn anyone to your side. Your reasoning may not be correct; just because you are firmly set in your beliefs it doesn't mean that you're right.

[Havard]

I would have posted this yesterday night, but rpgforums.net went down before I got home (or my internet just wouldn't connect to it for some reason).

It wasn't just you. So what is the deal? Does it happen often?

[Essex]

its happened often as of late, but it's probably good... lord knows we go so heated we need a little time out every now and then :)

[Pawn]

ok i sort of stopped reading most of this thread since it's basically redundant, but i do have a couple things to say. First of all whoever said i had tons of faith is wrong but oh well just like eiger i was putting it in what if sort of things.

Second of all your (AoA's) arrogance that he knows what god can and cannot do is simply astounding. I would be most pleased if you simply shut up so this thread doesnt degrade any further. You say yourself that you cant define by our own modes of thinking, yet you do it yourself again and again. For example, Eiger points out a possibility of there being a federation of gods but you say its stupid because there has to be a head guy telling the other gods to do. This would be right of course if it was according our mode of thinking but like you said its not so maybe there is a federation of gods.

And your talk about reason being immutable ( 1 + 1 = 2 i think you said) you have to be ****ting me, god is the one who created reason for humans so it can be changed if he wants to and he doesnt have to exist within the confines of human reason so reasoning how he exists alot of the time can be bs.

Finally all i have to say is that you make yourself out to be very unlikeable with you immature arrogant condescending bs. Wisen up maybe you'll actually persuade someone.

[Havard]

First of all whoever said i had tons of faith is wrong but oh well just like eiger i was putting it in what if sort of things.

That was me. It was in response to your comment: "I believe that an omnipotent god can create a boulder too heavy to lift. How and why i have no damn clue but that such a god can i have no doubt."

I'm saying that if you have no idea how or why you know this, but you still believe it, you must have tons of faith in this idea, not in religion or deism.


I would be most pleased if you simply shut up so this thread doesnt degrade any further.

Finally all i have to say is that you make yourself out to be very unlikeable with you immature arrogant condescending bs. Wisen up maybe you'll actually persuade someone.

Now you're being disrespectful to him, so by your own reasoning, he should ignore your post too.

*Off-topic: Hey! My 100th post! Whoohoo!!!

[Pawn]

lol havard congrats on 100th post. Well i had to respond to AoA in the only way he seems to understand on these threads.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

It seems odd that if God was all powerful he would only convey the message of his existance to one tiny tribe of people in the middle east. Why wait thousands of years to come down to earth and spread the message of Christianity?


What would have been a better way?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

From the comments made by others on your tone which I've read in a variety of threads - in the end it comes down to your tone rather than your points or message.


Well that would be a mark against my detractors, not me.


In the end, people remember the bullying remarks and absolutist comments and forget most of the salient points. Speaking of immutable...

Well perhaps you could try responding to my salient points, instead of feeling bullied. Didn't your father teach you to fight?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Erm... seems you misunderstood me AoA.
You've been discussing of this God by using the Bible as referance. Meaning you're limiting this "god" to the christian god. That's all I'm saying.
All Bhs Crew said was that this thread assumes "God" exists... why can't this god be based on the Coran? or why can't he be Zeus? or Osiris?
What right do you have in saying that the "God" is the christian god by default?

Erm.. Seems you still haven't read the entire thread, as I suggested. I explicitly mentioned that I wanted to carry this thread by "reasoned arguemntation", as you blokes would just spam those quoting scripture. In all my time here, I have not attemted to prove the "christian God", but there have been times where I have connected my philosophical argumentation with some texts of scripture.

[Bhs Crew]

What would have been a better way?

Almost anything. He could've come as a giant voice in the sky to be heard by everyone in the world. He coud've been the God of all the tribes from the start rather then just sticking with the Israelites for thousands of years before sending down Jesus. If he truly is all powerful and wanted to everyone to have the ability to be saved he could have made everyone God's people. Instead, despite being all powerful, he decided to pick one tiny tribe and stick with them damning everyone else in the world for thousands of years.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

That doesn't refute what I said, it is just you stating what you think.


Ok fair enough, I'm more than happy to start quoting texts. What will happen then? Will there be a legion of posters who would accuse me of just "believing what some old philosophers said"? All I've gotten here is skeptics in different clothing. If however you want to get serious, that argument is from Aristotle's metaphysics, and taken up again by Thomas Aquinas in his "summa theologica", prima pars.


Lets say that the two perfect Gods are both omnipotent.

And, since God can be considered to be everything and everywhere at the same time, both of them would have to be.
[/QUOTE]

So they would be contained within each other?


But that doesn't mean there can only be one of them.
God isn't a physical being. The best example of how they could both exist is that if they both happened to be a mist or something along those lines.


Mist is still physical. Any being outside corporeality cannot be defined by extension. I will find you some text references later if you wish.


You can take two mists and place them together in the same space (if we actually did this there would be more mist than before, but thats only because actual mist has mass). The mists could both have different "personalities," or something else to distinguish them.


I do understand your analogy. Aquinas and Dionysius speak of angels like this, as spirits occupying a "place or concept". Thus, they have no definition, but their existence is defined only in their "purpose" and "perfection". (Pseudo Dionysius' "celestial hierarchy")


If because you mixed the two together


Your language still indicates a corporeal structure.


and they both began to act exactly the same way, as one, it would mean the two Gods don't really have free will (for they always act the same when place in the same spot, as if they were placed into a mathematical algorithm).


Your folly is realized in your reference to "spot" or "place". It may be difficult to discuss these things, but Dionysuis provides a way of looking at it - there may be a text online - look up "mystical theology" - he speaks of incorporeality and limitations of language. Also look up Leibniz' Monadology. THis text is online. He, with Newton, was co-founder of calculus, and tried to produce an "a-priori" universal sysytem using a mathematical base, as mathematics and geometry are always universally true. You'll find in his theory of monads that this just does not work. Aristotle's metaphysics is the correct way to go about this. That text is also online.


Then perfection wouldn't have free will, although I don't know what implications that would have on the imperfect.


Free will is only realized in differentation from "unfree" will, or determinism. THus it could perhaps be said that God does not have will per se, rather, he is what he is. (he is beyond those concepts). But then, how can we speak of God if he is beyond concepts. Ahh, this is also demonstrated by the venerable Dionysisus, in his "negative theology". This is the concept that most of my detractors hate. The "tunnel to truth". The beauty of it is that it begins with common everyday experience, and is guided by reason.

Oh BTW Eiger - Reason is not something owned by humans - like "my reason is better than yours, and yours is better than so and so.. Reason is a state of being that human beings can partake in, to varying degrees - which is defined by one's will, and predisposing factors such as genetics, and personal history etc.


Greatness gleaned 100% from the material world. Terms such as "God" and "Omnipotence" are both human attempts to describe something that we cannot.


I'd qualify that by stating that these concepts were "discovered" in the process of philosophical sojourn.


But even that which we believe to be "God" is only a creation of ideas and thoughts derived from the material world.


It is true, that all our knowledge comes from sense experience. Yet, our reasoning power (aquinas calls it the agent intellect), gives us ability to sift and sort (kant's categorical imperative), and discover the inherent structure of things (ref. Cassirer's Philosophy of the enlightenment). Lack of knowledge is never the true problem - as time will solve it. Direction of knowledge however is the true problem in this initative. If you desire it with everything you have, and are posessed of the pre-dispositions to participate in speculative reason, you will come to understand.


You would be hard-pressed to show how our idea of greatness must have had an influence from something not of the material world.


On this thread, I pledged early on not to discuss divine revelation - as that would be answered by skeptical nay-sayers. At least we can go somewhere with this method. For some texts on revelation, read Aquinas' "treatise on man", found in Summa Theologica, first part.


And notions of pure and the absolute are easily explained by terms found only in the material world. For example, lets say you have a stream. This stream provides water for a village, and is essentially their source of life. Simply observing the stream as it is in a muddied state where the water is not healthy to drink and then seeing it when the water is clearer provides an explanation for the notion of pure.


Yes.


Human beings have imagination, we can make the connection from muddied -> clear and then take the next step, having the stream go from clear -> "pure."


Indeed, you've hinted at my exposition of speculative reason as posted above. I suppose it's worth it to continue posting on these threads :thanks: J/K.


It isn't a foolish statment at all. All I say is that if you take something that is flawed and apply it to something, you may come up with flawed results or ideas.


Yes that is also true. I'll have to re-read my post to see what I told you earlier.


That doesn't change the fact that you come of as condescending. Not to mention you are now also implying that you know the truth and that everyone else is wrong, and have as of yet not managed to turn anyone to your side. Your reasoning may not be correct; just because you are firmly set in your beliefs it doesn't mean that you're right.

Well, I suppose in today's culture of post-modernism, anyone who presented themselves as "sure" on a certain platform would be viewed with a yellow alert - either they're loony, or arrogant bastards etc, or at least naive. So, I don't care what others think. You're absolitely correct in that I believe what I say is the truth, and my detractors are wrong. The difference here lies in the fact that I am willing to demonstrate the position I hold. Does that bother you? Show me how I am wrong. I have studied most every philosopher of the last 3000 years - nothing anyone says here will strike me with a chime of novelty. Believe me folks, it's all be done.
With that, let's dissipate this foolish post-modern notion of relativity. If you train in something, you will grow strong. Pro athletes for instance, given they posess some innate talent, increase in skill with time and practise. Bodybuilders, with discipline and effort, produce burgeoning results. So it is with the philosopher. If one uses reason, and has the DESIRE for truth, you will grow strong as well. There is no excuse for the skeptic - they remain in a cage, with its key held firmly in their trembling hands.
Some of you posters - including you Booms, do posess the building blocks to think properly. What you choose to do the rest of your life is up to you.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Second of all your (AoA's) arrogance that he knows what god can and cannot do is simply astounding. I would be most pleased if you simply shut up so this thread doesnt degrade any further.


If you want to step off this train, it's entirely up to you. A more appropriate response would have been to ask me how I came to that conclusion. Yet, I mentioned that "not everything is possible". Now where did God's power come in? Not everything is possible with us - in reply to Eiger whimsically believing that "anything is possible". My position is that due to the systematic universe we inhabit, we have a series of options.
I would rather say that your arrogance is astounding, by holding skepticism as the "law of the land". By skepticism, we say that we cannot comprehend truth - it is beyond us. Then, we live in ignorance by our own choosing. Yet, there is something rather than nothing, and that something is a measurable something. We can see "what God is not", by what we see in our world. Thus, God is incapable of being a masochist, for instance. Your name suits you well, pawn of ignorance. I suggest you educate yourself.


You say yourself that you cant define by our own modes of thinking, yet you do it yourself again and again. For example, Eiger points out a possibility of there being a federation of gods but you say its stupid because there has to be a head guy telling the other gods to do. This would be right of course if it was according our mode of thinking but like you said its not so maybe there is a federation of gods.


You've achieved nothing worthy of reason in this paragraph. I have also mentioned that by our own limitations, we can infer what is lacking by tracing our our limitations. I find it amazing that all these silly ideas without substance are considered, but anything that is clearly explained is denounced by some. Ignorance is bliss, but I'll have no part of it.


And your talk about reason being immutable ( 1 + 1 = 2 i think you said) you have to be ****ting me, god is the one who created reason for humans so it can be changed if he wants to and he doesnt have to exist within the confines of human reason so reasoning how he exists alot of the time can be bs.


No, fool. Could it be that God's eternally simple and complete essence can be changed at will? Could it be that God could negate or destroy himself? If this were true, he would not be absolute. You're clearly not a philosopher, you're a troll who would attempt by vain rhetoric to dethrone reason.


Finally all i have to say is that you make yourself out to be very unlikeable with you immature arrogant condescending bs.


Dude, I could care less if Eiger, yourself, or my other detractors had a problem with me. I'm here to argue points. If you believe my arguments are BS, I invite you to punch holes in them.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If he truly is all powerful and wanted to everyone to have the ability to be saved he could have made everyone God's people.

Ok. What would it mean to be "saved"?



Something to chew on..
If salvation were clear to all, there would be no such thing as salvation.

[Booms]

AoA: I'll try to check out some of thoses texts you mentioned. Although, to be honest, finals are in a week so I've got a lot of studying ahead of me. And then I've got summer school after that, but it will probably be a lot less intense than school so chances are I'll be able to fit some reading into my schedule.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok sounds good Booms. Although I do have a short fuse, what I am saying here has substance. Anything by Plato or Aristotle for instance will help contemporary thinkers understand my surety. If you have the time, read Plato's "sophist", and his "symposium". The difference between the sophist and the philosopher is the most telling.

[Bhs Crew]

Ok. What would it mean to be "saved"?

Something to chew on..
If salvation were clear to all, there would be no such thing as salvation.

What would it mean to be saved? No idea. Its a term Christians I talk to throw around. I assumed it meant that you go to heaven.

"If salvation were clear to all, there would be no such thing as salvation."
Why?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

What would it mean to be saved? No idea. Its a term Christians I talk to throw around. I assumed it meant that you go to heaven.


Some athiests or agnostics reply to the Christian maxim of salvation as "saved from what"? That's a good meditation, I would say. What are we to be saved from?


"If salvation were clear to all, there would be no such thing as salvation."
Why?

There would be no salvation because everyone would already be in a state of being saved. Thus, with no antithesis known, there would be no concept of saved or lost.

[Pawn]

No i dont want to dethrone reason as you put it i just say human reason cant be used for an entity such as God (if he even exists but i'm not getting into that) I frankly dont see how your "education" will be helpful to me except for sounding high and mighty on an off topic forum so i'm out cya around hopefully not on friendlier terms where your not being arrogant and condescending (and im not asserting that i wasnt being an ***hole either) adios i'm off this train. Oh and trying to insult me by my mocking my forum name is just plain silly :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No i dont want to dethrone reason as you put it i just say human reason cant be used for an entity such as God (if he even exists but i'm not getting into that)


Well it's certainly true that we can't fathom the depths of God by reason, but we can know what he is not, as I explained earlier.


I frankly dont see how your "education" will be helpful to me


Your education needn't come through me. It's already at your fingertips if you want it. (I did say "educate yourself"). :idea:


except for sounding high and mighty on an off topic forum


Well I hope when you do educate yourself, you will be able to back up your arguments. I can be naturally tempermental, but I always stress what's in the text. I'd say by the fervor of your assault on me earlier, you may come across the same way. If that day ever comes, I'll greet you with compassion ;).


so i'm out cya around hopefully not on friendlier terms where your not being arrogant and condescending (and im not asserting that i wasnt being an ***hole either) adios i'm off this train. Oh and trying to insult me by my mocking my forum name is just plain silly :)

I don't "dislike" anyone here - it's not about emotional mishmash. There have been people here who I'd be locked in ferocious battle with, who I get along with fine otherwise. It's never about the tone. Only about the text.

[Bhs Crew]

Some athiests or agnostics reply to the Christian maxim of salvation as "saved from what"? That's a good meditation, I would say. What are we to be saved from?



There would be no salvation because everyone would already be in a state of being saved. Thus, with no antithesis known, there would be no concept of saved or lost.

Well for the moment I'm going to go with the idea that being saved means you go to heaven not hell, as that's what most religious people I know take it to mean.

Well if being a good christian or jew means that you get salvation, then salvation could be clear to all and many people would not take it. My point was that for thousands of years only one tiny tribe had the choice of salvation. The rest of the people in the world had no ability to get into heaven.

Of course this assumes that the Christian/ Jewish god actually exists. Going back to the starting post.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well for the moment I'm going to go with the idea that being saved means you go to heaven not hell, as that's what most religious people I know take it to mean.


I don't see it as just that at all - in fact, that's the last thing I consider. But indeed, it's in there for sure.


Well if being a good christian or jew means that you get salvation, then salvation could be clear to all and many people would not take it.


Socrates mentioned that if a person truly perceived the good, he or she would take it. I'm inclined to agree. If your salvation is clear to you, and you don't take it, you haven't seen it's true efficacy.


My point was that for thousands of years only one tiny tribe had the choice of salvation. The rest of the people in the world had no ability to get into heaven.


Truly? Remember, God is outside time and space. There are millions of people who haven't heard or will not hear the Gospel, but is that to say that they may not be saved? The situation is more nuanced than that.

As for the tribe thing, God uses this world as his theatre of revelation in time. Some preachers have laid this out well - as his "direct dealings" with humanity grew from 1 on 1, to a family, to a tribe, to a nation, to the human race (in the revelation of Christ), and ultimately, to all in the resurrection. It's progressive, and you and I are part of the big picture.

[Eiger]

1) Well that would be a mark against my detractors, not me.

2) Well perhaps you could try responding to my salient points, instead of feeling bullied. Didn't your father teach you to fight?
1) You can bury your head in the sand if that makes you feel good, but no it's a mark against you.

2) I'm not feeling bullied, but others are. Sorry, but you're not even close to having that effect on me. I respond to your points as they interest me. Just because you desire a response and an argument doesn't mean I'm obligated to fulfill those desires. In my posts above, I was seeking to have a little fun playing with those ideas and not get into a pissing match. You can do your thing and I'll do mine thank you very much.

[Eiger]

Oh BTW Eiger - Reason is not something owned by humans - like "my reason is better than yours, and yours is better than so and so.. Reason is a state of being that human beings can partake in, to varying degrees - which is defined by one's will, and predisposing factors such as genetics, and personal history etc.

Well, I suppose in today's culture of post-modernism, anyone who presented themselves as "sure" on a certain platform would be viewed with a yellow alert - either they're loony, or arrogant bastards etc, or at least naive. So, I don't care what others think. You're absolitely correct in that I believe what I say is the truth, and my detractors are wrong. The difference here lies in the fact that I am willing to demonstrate the position I hold. Does that bother you? Show me how I am wrong. I have studied most every philosopher of the last 3000 years - nothing anyone says here will strike me with a chime of novelty. Believe me folks, it's all be done.

With that, let's dissipate this foolish post-modern notion of relativity. If you train in something, you will grow strong. Pro athletes for instance, given they posess some innate talent, increase in skill with time and practise. Bodybuilders, with discipline and effort, produce burgeoning results. So it is with the philosopher. If one uses reason, and has the DESIRE for truth, you will grow strong as well. There is no excuse for the skeptic - they remain in a cage, with its key held firmly in their trembling hands.

Hmm, reason is a state of being? Merriam-Webster defines reason as:

Main Entry: 1rea·son http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?reason01.wav=reason'))
Pronunciation: 'rE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English resoun, from Old French raison, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanation
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action> d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cause) <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay -- Graham Greene>
2 a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=intelligence) (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITY (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sanity) b : the sum of the intellectual powers
3 archaic : treatment that affords satisfaction
- in reason : RIGHTLY (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=rightly), JUSTIFIABLY (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=justifiably)
- within reason : within reasonable limits
- with reason : with good cause

It appears to me that reason is more of a means to explore, explain and justify concepts based on a stated premise(s). Care to elaborate on the state of being thing?

The thing is, I'm wondering what you think. What you've learned from the things you've read and how you've taken it to the next level. You quote texts which is all fine and well, but has what you've learned from them allowed you to advance beyond the core concepts of western thought? Your opinions appear to be "stuck in the box". Have you done any thinking outside the box to build on these core concepts?

As for proving you wrong, it's very difficult to prove yourself right as well. That coin's got a huge flip side.

[Bhs Crew]

Socrates mentioned that if a person truly perceived the good, he or she would take it. I'm inclined to agree. If your salvation is clear to you, and you don't take it, you haven't seen it's true efficacy.


Well, salvation in the Christian sense can be clear, but without proof in its existance many people are going to prefur to not be confined in the religions rules and will instead live their lives how they see fit.

I was always a big fan of Socrates because he believed in willpower and the ability of people to have control over their own actions. He said that true moral behavior always leads to an increase in one's happiness and any action that increases one's happiness is moral behavior. We all do the things we think will make us happy, we just figure wrong in the long term.

Which brings me back to religion. The only way following the ethics of Christianity or Judiaism would make many people truly happy, would be if God is exactly like they say he is and by following these morals you go to heaven (which would bring long term happiness). However, if the Christians and Jews are wrong then happiness lies with each individual person making their own decisions on life. If I reduce my happiness in this life expecting to be rewarded in the next and there is no next life, then I have made a mistake in my goal towards long term happiness.

The problem comes down to that we don't truely know whether God even exists. If he does exist the chances that there is a heaven just waiting for us if we follow the Christian or Jewish teachings seems rather slim, considering the amount of other religions that have existed throughout the years. Without that knowledge it seems to me that the best idea is for each person to work for long term happiness in this life and worry about what happens after death when it comes to that.

[Eiger]

Now where did God's power come in? Not everything is possible with us - in reply to Eiger whimsically believing that "anything is possible". My position is that due to the systematic universe we inhabit, we have a series of options.

I would rather say that your arrogance is astounding, by holding skepticism as the "law of the land". By skepticism, we say that we cannot comprehend truth - it is beyond us. Then, we live in ignorance by our own choosing. Yet, there is something rather than nothing, and that something is a measurable something. We can see "what God is not", by what we see in our world. Thus, God is incapable of being a masochist, for instance. Your name suits you well, pawn of ignorance. I suggest you educate yourself.

No, fool. Could it be that God's eternally simple and complete essence can be changed at will? Could it be that God could negate or destroy himself? If this were true, he would not be absolute. You're clearly not a philosopher, you're a troll who would attempt by vain rhetoric to dethrone reason.

Dude, I could care less if Eiger, yourself, or my other detractors had a problem with me. I'm here to argue points. If you believe my arguments are BS, I invite you to punch holes in them.
My "anything's possible" comment was hardly one worth repeating, especially out of context. It did not refer to "us". You'll need to do better.

Pawn's not holding skepticism as the law of the land. Skepticism on one or a series of points does not a skeptic make.

We can see what God is not by what we see in our world? I wonder. Since "we are God's creation", we and our world certainly represent his/her vision and that is certainly a part of him. As an artist gives a part of himself to his creations. God being incapable of being a masochist does not follow logically from the stated comment. Care to elaborate so we can see more clearly where you're coming from? On a side note, it seems to me that he must have some masochistic tendencies if he created this world, hehe.

The old philosopher/sophist thing. "You're clearly not a philosopher", so you must be one of those troll sophists. Pure elitist bs on the part of "philosophers" - needing to put others down to pump themselves up. That was old when Plato, or was it Aristotle pulled that one. Geez gimme a break.

[Eiger]

Truly? Remember, God is outside time and space. There are millions of people who haven't heard or will not hear the Gospel, but is that to say that they may not be saved? The situation is more nuanced than that.

As for the tribe thing, God uses this world as his theatre of revelation in time. Some preachers have laid this out well - as his "direct dealings" with humanity grew from 1 on 1, to a family, to a tribe, to a nation, to the human race (in the revelation of Christ), and ultimately, to all in the resurrection. It's progressive, and you and I are part of the big picture.
BhsCrew said "My point was that for thousands of years only one tiny tribe had the choice of salvation. The rest of the people in the world had no ability to get into heaven."

Your point appears to validate his in that the progressive nature of salvation growing towards the present leaves out those who missed the gospel. Is that a correct summary of your position?

If not, how is the situation more nuanced? That is left unexplained.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

1) You can bury your head in the sand if that makes you feel good, but no it's a mark against you.


lol.. would you like to substantiate that?



2) I'm not feeling bullied, but others are. Sorry, but you're not even close to having that effect on me. I respond to your points as they interest me. Just because you desire a response and an argument doesn't mean I'm obligated to fulfill those desires. In my posts above, I was seeking to have a little fun playing with those ideas and not get into a pissing match. You can do your thing and I'll do mine thank you very much.

LOL - you chose the term "bullying". In any conflict, even in debate such as this, there are 3 options. First, there is engaging in the debate, and answering in kind. Then, there are the less desired options of running away, or kicking and screaming. Indeed, youre "fun playing" is about the only response I've elicited from you thus far. In response to my argumentation, you simply said "naw, everything's possible". That's called willful ignorance. You really should stay away from these threads if that's the way you reply to intelligent conversation.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

It appears to me that reason is more of a means to explore, explain and justify concepts based on a stated premise(s). Care to elaborate on the state of being thing?


I believe you got burned by Andarcel and I on an earlier thread for referring to "google search philosophy". This is just another clear example. The definition of "reason" took many forms throughout the ages. The dictionary example you plucked out merely represents the post-modern definition, and no, not everything gets better with time.
My position on reason, as I elucidated time and again - at least once on EVERY other thread on religion and philosophy - is a "modern" definition, employed by Immanuel Kant, and further extrapolated by Ernst Cassirer. The text is called "the philosophy of the enlightenment" if you're interested. It goes into detail how the definition had undergone alterations throught the ages, and explains our postmodern understanding - it's a 20th century text. Reason is essentially a force that we can participate in by means of our humanity, just like "life" is something we participate in. Reason has clear laws, and demands our will for truth to run its full course. Ironically, what most people call reason these days is not reason at all - it's "rationalize", or "rational lies".


The thing is, I'm wondering what you think. What you've learned from the things you've read and how you've taken it to the next level.


THis is your problem - you believe that everything must develop and progress. THis is your downfall. Things that are universally true and actual cannot change in time, or develop. THe only thing that can develop is our participation in these things - which is our knowledge of a thing that is compounded incrementally (like u said before), but that has to do with our adapting to the object, not vice versa.


You quote texts which is all fine and well, but has what you've learned from them allowed you to advance beyond the core concepts of western thought?


heh.. What is "core western thought"? Call it east or west - and I can mix the two easily - there is only one thinking. What concepts are there to move beyond?


Your opinions appear to be "stuck in the box". Have you done any thinking outside the box to build on these core concepts?



I would absolutely love it if you'd explain this more. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're referring to my systematic cosmology. These concepts cannot be built upon, but they can be maneouvered around. Yet, even if this were to be so, a new system would be built in kind. If it helps, Aristotelianism was discarded just after the high middle ages, as Descartes' rationalism took hold. Descartes is the reason you think the way you do. Essentially, "moving outside the box", or being freed from the "yoke of aristotle" was the theme of the day - as he attempted to create a cosmology from scratch by means of mathematics and a priori geometrical concepts. This seemed like a good idea because these concepts are universals. Yet, Spinoza and Liebniz attempted the same thing, and got different results. The problem there was they did not make use of empirical data - they based their thought on purely the theoretical. Then came the empiricists - who discarded the theoretical, and opted only for the empirical - like Locke, Berkeley, and Hume for instance. It was Kant who saw their folly, and resharpened the tools of antiquity to "discover" the way things were. That's what philosophers do - they wish to discover.
THat being said, the post modern era was ushered in as a response to Kant. NO POST MODERN PHILOSOPHER could defeat Kant's project. However, what was lacking was reference to "the spirit" - as being humans, we don't care about truth unless "love" goes with it. This was addressed by kierkegaard, nietzeche, and scheler. In the end however, it was contemporary philosopher M. Foucault who just up and said "I prefer a new philosophy" that is about "what works", not the truth. Post modernism is about "what works for you". Yet, it is the most foolish period in human history - just look around you. That's why I try to get people reading Plato - since in many ways, he was answering the same crowd.



As for proving you wrong, it's very difficult to prove yourself right as well. That coin's got a huge flip side.

Let's take personalities out of it, and be lead by reason.

[Eiger]

LOL - you chose the term "bullying". In any conflict, even in debate such as this, there are 3 options. First, there is engaging in the debate, and answering in kind. Then, there are the less desired options of running away, or kicking and screaming. Indeed, youre "fun playing" is about the only response I've elicited from you thus far. In response to my argumentation, you simply said "naw, everything's possible". That's called willful ignorance. You really should stay away from these threads if that's the way you reply to intelligent conversation.
The bullying is a general remark net encompassing more than this thread. As for the intelligent conversation - who said it was intended to be intelligent? hehe. We aren't necessarily what you want us to be.

[Bhs Crew]

It was Kant who saw their folly, and resharpened the tools of antiquity to "discover" the way things were. That's what philosophers do - they wish to discover.
THat being said, the post modern era was ushered in as a response to Kant. NO POST MODERN PHILOSOPHER could defeat Kant's project..
Just one question. Could you go over Kant's project. What was it?

In the end however, it was contemporary philosopher M. Foucault who just up and said "I prefer a new philosophy" that is about "what works", not the truth. Post modernism is about "what works for you". Yet, it is the most foolish period in human history - just look around you.
What is foolish about it? I've looked around me and what surrounds me isn't so bad. What don't you like about it?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Since "we are God's creation", we and our world certainly represent his/her vision and that is certainly a part of him. As an artist gives a part of himself to his creations. God being incapable of being a masochist does not follow logically from the stated comment.


Yes, the image of the artist is seen it his/her work. Yet, the question of "God's ideal vision" needs more explanation. Namely, we can see evidence of "the fall" in our humanity. Everything in the universe seems well planned out and sustained, yet our hearts chase after this or that, and alot of us life in chaos or disarray - in other words, life ain't perfect. Is that representative of a God who is not perfect? If this were so - God being mutable, that would indicate that God is capable of being moved by something. If that is so, there would be an infinite regress of things moved. And further, if this were true, there would be no stability in the cosmos, asthere must be a prime mover to begin everything. Eternity cannot be an infinte regress, as in a state of eternity, there is no movement, progression, or finitude.


[color=yellowgreen]The old philosopher/sophist thing. "You're clearly not a philosopher", so you must be one of those troll sophists. Pure elitist bs on the part of "philosophers" - needing to put others down to pump themselves up. That was old when Plato, or was it Aristotle pulled that one. Geez gimme a break.
[/QUOTE]

Well I'm sorry Eiger, but you're not. I would like to call myself the greatest stud on earth, but I'm not. It's just that simple. Now you *could* become a philosopher, there is no doubt, and perhaps you're moving towards that direction, but to call someone a sophist is no insult - it merely represents a way of thinking.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Your point appears to validate his in that the progressive nature of salvation growing towards the present leaves out those who missed the gospel. Is that a correct summary of your position?


Yes it's true that there are many who have not heard the audiable message of salvation in Christ. Yet, there are other ways to hear the Gospel.


If not, how is the situation more nuanced? That is left unexplained.

Well, one cannot respond to a message one has not heard. Essentially, it is our duty to respond best we can to whatever revelation of God is at our disposal. In our age of information, it is our task to follow reason, and to walk humbly before our creator. If we do this, we can sift through the chaff to arrive at the true wheat. For some, it's intense intellectual pruning, for others, it seeking God in prayer and action. The main thing we must keep in mind is "are we being honest with ourselves?". Also, we have to be willing to sacrifice those things we love sometimes to "get it right".

[Havard]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[Eiger]

1) I believe you got burned by Andarcel and I on an earlier thread for referring to "google search philosophy". This is just another clear example. The definition of "reason" took many forms throughout the ages. The dictionary example you plucked out merely represents the post-modern definition, and no, not everything gets better with time.
My position on reason, as I elucidated time and again - at least once on EVERY other thread on religion and philosophy - is a "modern" definition, employed by Immanuel Kant, and further extrapolated by Ernst Cassirer. The text is called "the philosophy of the enlightenment" if you're interested. It goes into detail how the definition had undergone alterations throught the ages, and explains our postmodern understanding - it's a 20th century text. Reason is essentially a force that we can participate in by means of our humanity, just like "life" is something we participate in. Reason has clear laws, and demands our will for truth to run its full course. Ironically, what most people call reason these days is not reason at all - it's "rationalize", or "rational lies".



2) THis is your problem - you believe that everything must develop and progress. THis is your downfall. Things that are universally true and actual cannot change in time, or develop. THe only thing that can develop is our participation in these things - which is our knowledge of a thing that is compounded incrementally (like u said before), but that has to do with our adapting to the object, not vice versa.



3) heh.. What is "core western thought"? Call it east or west - and I can mix the two easily - there is only one thinking. What concepts are there to move beyond?



4)I would absolutely love it if you'd explain this more. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're referring to my systematic cosmology. These concepts cannot be built upon, but they can be maneouvered around. Yet, even if this were to be so, a new system would be built in kind. If it helps, Aristotelianism was discarded just after the high middle ages, as Descartes' rationalism took hold. Descartes is the reason you think the way you do. Essentially, "moving outside the box", or being freed from the "yoke of aristotle" was the theme of the day - as he attempted to create a cosmology from scratch by means of mathematics and a priori geometrical concepts. This seemed like a good idea because these concepts are universals. Yet, Spinoza and Liebniz attempted the same thing, and got different results. The problem there was they did not make use of empirical data - they based their thought on purely the theoretical. Then came the empiricists - who discarded the theoretical, and opted only for the empirical - like Locke, Berkeley, and Hume for instance. It was Kant who saw their folly, and resharpened the tools of antiquity to "discover" the way things were. That's what philosophers do - they wish to discover.
THat being said, the post modern era was ushered in as a response to Kant. NO POST MODERN PHILOSOPHER could defeat Kant's project. However, what was lacking was reference to "the spirit" - as being humans, we don't care about truth unless "love" goes with it. This was addressed by kierkegaard, nietzeche, and scheler. In the end however, it was contemporary philosopher M. Foucault who just up and said "I prefer a new philosophy" that is about "what works", not the truth. Post modernism is about "what works for you". Yet, it is the most foolish period in human history - just look around you. That's why I try to get people reading Plato - since in many ways, he was answering the same crowd.

5) Let's take personalities out of it, and be lead by reason.
1) Now reason is the force. No wonder most people use the current definition. I'll stick with Merriam-Webster, thanks. It works a whole lot better for me.

2) Ah, so you do just parrot others' ideas and have no original ones of your own?

3) The philosophers you tend to quote are all European as far as I've seen. Let's call it European thought then. Whatever.

4) See #2 above.

5) I'll be my own leader thanks. Don't much like being a follower. And the force doesn't do much for me. Star Trek meets Star Wars, hehe.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well, salvation in the Christian sense can be clear, but without proof in its existance many people are going to prefur to not be confined in the religions rules and will instead live their lives how they see fit.


In truth, salvation in the Christian sense is still a bit muddy for me - I know Jesus is the savior, but actually understanding the scope of that may take me a lifetime.


I was always a big fan of Socrates because he believed in willpower and the ability of people to have control over their own actions.


In which texts does this arise?


He said that true moral behavior always leads to an increase in one's happiness and any action that increases one's happiness is moral behavior. We all do the things we think will make us happy, we just figure wrong in the long term.


Getting there.. but he desired to find "the good" - an objective principle, and discover the most worthwile way of living.


Which brings me back to religion. The only way following the ethics of Christianity or Judiaism would make many people truly happy, would be if God is exactly like they say he is and by following these morals you go to heaven (which would bring long term happiness). However, if the Christians and Jews are wrong then happiness lies with each individual person making their own decisions on life. If I reduce my happiness in this life expecting to be rewarded in the next and there is no next life, then I have made a mistake in my goal towards long term happiness.


One thing for sure, if Christianity were ethics, I could not follow.


The problem comes down to that we don't truely know whether God even exists.


In a way, you're correct. It's about knowing Jesus. All the doctrine in the world won't cut the mustard without that connection.


If he does exist the chances that there is a heaven just waiting for us if we follow the Christian or Jewish teachings seems rather slim, considering the amount of other religions that have existed throughout the years.


What if I told you that "heaven" begins in this life for those who receive Christ?


Without that knowledge it seems to me that the best idea is for each person to work for long term happiness in this life and worry about what happens after death when it comes to that.

Ok, continue on that course, but what are you working towards? We were born with these innate needs for love and happiness. "Only the fool lives an unexamined life" - Socrates. You can know before you die. Life is not meaningless.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Just one question. Could you go over Kant's project. What was it?


Kant worked to discover the "limits and scope of Reason". Read his texts please.


What is foolish about it? I've looked around me and what surrounds me isn't so bad. What don't you like about it?

Need I really answer this? It's plain to see the futility and intellectual dishonesty in this. Foucault gave NO ARGUMENT for his departure from Kant. He simply mentioned that he PREFERRED another way. Thus, he simply discarded, thoughtlessly, over 3 eons of thought. You can't just discard it - the position must be worked with. He was a whiner - not an intellectual.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

1) Now reason is the force. No wonder most people use the current definition. I'll stick with Merriam-Webster, thanks. It works a whole lot better for me.


Try reading the text to understand what he means by the term "force". Sometimes figurative language best describes things.



2) Ah, so you do just parrot others' ideas and have no original ones of your own?


Would you call your ideas original? There are no original ideas - and one discovers this by experimenting. I've seen your "original ideas" - they are whimsical fairy tales. Get serious about it or get off the thread.



3) The philosophers you tend to quote are all European as far as I've seen. Let's call it European thought then. Whatever.



And your point is? Would you like me to start quoting the eastern stuff? Seems that's where everyone flocks to these days, yet it's the same thing in a different pile.


5) I'll be my own leader thanks. Don't much like being a follower. And the force doesn't do much for me. Star Trek meets Star Wars, hehe.

Well believe it or not, you are a follower - a slave morelike. And you will remain a slave to your own opinion and agenda until you take steps to take these questions seriously. One would think that at 43, you may have tackled a few. Perhaps you've given up?

[Bhs Crew]

In which texts does this arise?
I was going off of his theory that each person had the ability to think carefully about the ideas and values involved and then make an action based on that. It was a person's internal will power that allowed them to do this.

Saint Paul on the other hand said, "I do the things I hate... I do not do the good things I want to do; I do the wrong things I do not want to do." He believed that when he succeeded in doing what was right, it was the holy spirit willing in him that accomplished it.


Getting there.. but he desired to find "the good" - an objective principle, and discover the most worthwile way of living.
There may be an objective princible. If you treat others well you tend to get treated well yourself. If you deal with other people fairly then people will usually deal with you fairly. If you don't lie then people trust you more often. This theory isn't perfect but combined with hard work and drive it is a pretty good blueprint for long term happiness.


Ok, continue on that course, but what are you working towards? We were born with these innate needs for love and happiness. "Only the fool lives an unexamined life" - Socrates. You can know before you die. Life is not meaningless.
I am working towards my own happiness. I just believe that each person can find it in their lives and that it may not be the same for each person. By examining my life and figuring out what will make me happiest in both the short and long term I can live a life full of love and happiness. While my life isn't meaningless it also doesn't have an inherent meaning either. It has a meaning of my choosing.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I was going off of his theory that each person had the ability to think carefully about the ideas and values involved and then make an action based on that. It was a person's internal will power that allowed them to do this.


I asked you for the reference because this was not his full position. It was based on the thought and concept, and much less on the will. Thus, if someone saw the good, they WOULD do it.


Saint Paul on the other hand said, "I do the things I hate... I do not do the good things I want to do; I do the wrong things I do not want to do." He believed that when he succeeded in doing what was right, it was the holy spirit willing in him that accomplished it.


Trying to prove by means of scripture that the will takes a back seat is foolhardy. Paul also mentiones in that same text to "strive.. run the race with the goal to win". He was discussing in that text his weaknesses, which the Holy Spirit helps, but our will to continue is absolutely essential.


There may be an objective princible. If you treat others well you tend to get treated well yourself. If you deal with other people fairly then people will usually deal with you fairly. If you don't lie then people trust you more often. This theory isn't perfect but combined with hard work and drive it is a pretty good blueprint for long term happiness.


I don't care if there "may or may not be" some principle. I only care what's in the text. A sophist is someone who speed reads texts and fills in the rest with rhetoric. True thinkers dig in, and digest it. Only then, does one progress in knowledge.


While my life isn't meaningless it also doesn't have an inherent meaning either. It has a meaning of my choosing.

Well I'd argue that you're missing out. Did you create yourself? If you did, you would be correct in sitting on your position of creating your own meaning. So go ahead, make up your own meaning and live a lie. Only God knows why you were created. Seek his advice.

[Eiger]

1)Yes, the image of the artist is seen it his/her work. Yet, the question of "God's ideal vision" needs more explanation. Namely, we can see evidence of "the fall" in our humanity. Everything in the universe seems well planned out and sustained, yet our hearts chase after this or that, and alot of us life in chaos or disarray - in other words, life ain't perfect. Is that representative of a God who is not perfect? If this were so - God being mutable, that would indicate that God is capable of being moved by something. If that is so, there would be an infinite regress of things moved. And further, if this were true, there would be no stability in the cosmos, asthere must be a prime mover to begin everything. Eternity cannot be an infinte regress, as in a state of eternity, there is no movement, progression, or finitude.

2)Well I'm sorry Eiger, but you're not. I would like to call myself the greatest stud on earth, but I'm not. It's just that simple. Now you *could* become a philosopher, there is no doubt, and perhaps you're moving towards that direction, but to call someone a sophist is no insult - it merely represents a way of thinking.
1) Ok perfect = immutable - how can something perfect need change. However, what if God is not perfect - we're just assuming him to be? Perhaps he only has control over certain things and not others such as the laws of physics and chemistry. I don't see how that lends itself to infinite movement and instability. Now if he's changing things all the time perhaps - but what if he's imperfect and doesn't change the basic laws of physics and chemistry. I don't see why things would become unstable. On a different note are you saying that he's incapable of changing his mind - (of course then a perfect entity would never make a mistake - it's just something in the grand plan).

2) No thanks, no desire to be a philosopher. It just seemed that you used sophist as an insult, so I thought I'd note it.

[Eiger]

Well believe it or not, you are a follower - a slave morelike. And you will remain a slave to your own opinion and agenda until you take steps to take these questions seriously. One would think that at 43, you may have tackled a few. Perhaps you've given up?
It seems we have a different perspective on slavery. But you assume incorrectly that I haven't taken these questions seriously. I have - but I've rejected many of the things which you believe and therein lies the real issue.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

1) Ok perfect = immutable - how can something perfect need change.


Exactly, it cannot change.


However, what if God is not perfect - we're just assuming him to be?


By the laws of metaphysics, we MUST assert that God is "perfect". I probably went through the metaphysics about 6 or 7 times on various threads since I've been part of this community. Our world, as it is, demands an "unmoved mover" that is by definition, free of admixture of imperfections and definitions.


Perhaps he only has control over certain things and not others such as the laws of physics and chemistry. I don't see how that lends itself to infinite movement and instability. Now if he's changing things all the time perhaps - but what if he's imperfect and doesn't change the basic laws of physics and chemistry. I don't see why things would become unstable. On a different note are you saying that he's incapable of changing his mind - (of course then a perfect entity would never make a mistake - it's just something in the grand plan).


We then will have to discuss why God MUST be above and beyond any corporeal structure. I'll get back to that after I do my laundry - provided you're still around. A good text to begin with is Aristotle's metaphysics, and Aquinas' Summa theologica - the first 30 questions. Once we move outside the corporeal (and we can do this by metaphysics), you will see clearly why God must necessarily be lord over any and all temporal aspect.



2) No thanks, no desire to be a philosopher. It just seemed that you used sophist as an insult, so I thought I'd note it.

No problem, I never meant any insult. But your desire to question me does lend itself to a philosophical bent. You may be a convert yet :uhhuh:.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

It seems we have a different perspective on slavery. But you assume incorrectly that I haven't taken these questions seriously. I have - but I've rejected many of the things which you believe and therein lies the real issue.

Yes, I believe you. Welcome to round 2.

[Essex]

ok seriously I don't even read what is post anymore in this thread. It's not even a philosphical pissing match it's a "big word out of the dictonary" pissing match. Not that it's not fun but it's not really furthering the debate either. You have to understand that most of the people in here either don't care about philosphy, don't know a lot about it, or are in highschool if not younger.

Anyway your gonna keep on just thought i'd chime in. and havard I like the Ralph quote fits in nice within this arguement lol

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Haha, I understand Essex. One thing though, these topics deal with some heavy-duty subject matter. I'm sure people could find other threads to post on if they don't care for this.

[Havard]

Thanks Essex, that was exactly what I was trying to convey with my Ralphie quote. No use trying to jump in unless you're going to go full bore, and I don't have time to zip through all the great works of philosophy in between posts.

[Bhs Crew]

I don't care if there "may or may not be" some principle. I only care what's in the text. A sophist is someone who speed reads texts and fills in the rest with rhetoric. True thinkers dig in, and digest it. Only then, does one progress in knowledge..
"There may be an objective princible. If you treat others well you tend to get treated well yourself. If you deal with other people fairly then people will usually deal with you fairly. If you don't lie then people trust you more often. This theory isn't perfect but combined with hard work and drive it is a pretty good blueprint for long term happiness."
I didn't mean there may be an objective principle in the texts. I meant there may be an objective principle in life. I wasn't speaking about Socrates at all in that paragraph. I just gave the best principles that I had found so far that seemed to work in my life and would probably work in many others.

Well I'd argue that you're missing out. Did you create yourself? If you did, you would be correct in sitting on your position of creating your own meaning. So go ahead, make up your own meaning and live a lie. Only God knows why you were created. Seek his advice.
I didn't create myself, I was created by my parents. They have aleady given me much insight and fortunatly being human I have the ability to reason on my own and find my own path.
I plan to make up my own meaning. You say that meaning is a lie, but if I live a long happy life and at the end I have no regrets, what was the problem? You believe that God can tell you your purpose, and you may be right. You may also be wrong and God might not exist or he might have no purpose in mind for each individual. My question simply is, "If I live a long happy life built on my own purpose and ideas, and you consider it a lie, why should I care?" What about my long happy life will be made worse because I didn't spend it searching for a God to tell me why I'm here?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I didn't create myself, I was created by my parents.


I would argue that your parents did not create you. They were conduits of creation, and gave you their flesh, but did not "create" you. What I mean by creation is the principle of life. Your soul is the principle of life, which your parents cannot give you - they only give the flesh. The principle of life, or soul, is not simply a chemical reaction or change - it is spirit.


They have aleady given me much insight and fortunatly being human I have the ability to reason on my own and find my own path.


Yes, you certainly do.


I plan to make up my own meaning. You say that meaning is a lie, but if I live a long happy life and at the end I have no regrets, what was the problem?


The problem is you may have been blind to your true purpose. Then again, not everyone sees their purpose, and still yet fulfills it. I personally could not live my life without attempting to discover my purpose for existing. THat being said, if you're naturally a questioner, I can say with a great deal of clarity that you'd be well advised in taking this very seriously.


You believe that God can tell you your purpose, and you may be right. You may also be wrong and God might not exist or he might have no purpose in mind for each individual.


Just a quick question - if you're not sure of the existence of God, why create a thread assuming his existence? I would stick with the first question before moving towards the nature of God.


My question simply is, "If I live a long happy life built on my own purpose and ideas, and you consider it a lie, why should I care?" What about my long happy life will be made worse because I didn't spend it searching for a God to tell me why I'm here?

The answer to this depends on your system of values. If you value a system of happiness that consists solely in the increase of joys of this life, than naturally you wouldn't care. I on the other hand, see this life as a means to an end. I call it "the world of becoming". As such, I can enjoy life as I live it, but I am ever mindful of who and what I am becoming. So, it really depends on what you value.
That being said, I could never go back to your position (I was there before). Philosophy and "religious experience" has forced me to consider things that are beyond the normal modes of inclination.

[Bhs Crew]

I would argue that your parents did not create you. They were conduits of creation, and gave you their flesh, but did not "create" you. What I mean by creation is the principle of life. Your soul is the principle of life, which your parents cannot give you - they only give the flesh. The principle of life, or soul, is not simply a chemical reaction or change - it is spirit.
Well it could be a chemical reaction. Could be that everything that is us is connected completly to this body that we are it. Matter could be all there is to us. We may think we are more then this but mabye the entire world is electro-chemical. The flesh might be all there is. In this case the principle of life and the soul is matter and then we would be entirely created by our parents.


The problem is you may have been blind to your true purpose. Then again, not everyone sees their purpose, and still yet fulfills it. I personally could not live my life without attempting to discover my purpose for existing. THat being said, if you're naturally a questioner, I can say with a great deal of clarity that you'd be well advised in taking this very seriously.
Being naturally a questioner I do take this whole thing very seriously. As far as I can tell I have two choices with my purpose in life. I can use my energy to try to find out if God exists and then try to figure out what purpose he has for me. Or I can try develop my own purpose in life that works just as well. Either way takes a lot of time and energy.

If I choose option one and if turns out there is no god or that he doesn't have a purpose for me then I spent my entire life searching for something that isn't there. If he does exist and has a philosophy for me then mabye I finially find out what God wanted me to do with my life. In this case I get to find out what God wanted me to do.
If I choose option two I spend my entire life developing and refining my own purpose in life. I live a long happy life and die with no regrets.

Option one is a search with a giant gamble attached. Option two is a method that yealds a result. I do not see a reason to search for someone else to tell me what I should do with my life. I am perfectly able to decide what to do with my life on my own.

Just a quick question - if you're not sure of the existence of God, why create a thread assuming his existence? I would stick with the first question before moving towards the nature of God.
I created the thread assuming God exists to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. I was trying to direct the conversation in a direction I had not heard before.

The answer to this depends on your system of values. If you value a system of happiness that consists solely in the increase of joys of this life, than naturally you wouldn't care. I on the other hand, see this life as a means to an end. I call it "the world of becoming". As such, I can enjoy life as I live it, but I am ever mindful of who and what I am becoming. So, it really depends on what you value.
Even if life exists after death, and I have no idea if it does or what form it takes, then there is nothing wrong with living a good life here. If I am a good person and live a life as a good person what I'm becoming is an older and better person. Whatever happens after I die I will be able to meet it after a good long life. I can't imagine how living a long happy life will work against me.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well it could be a chemical reaction.


THis is absolutely impossible. "Life" cannot be corporeally generated - it is "the breath of life", if you will. Matter cannot create life. It may host it for this reality, but does not create it. Life cannot have started from a chemical soup as some would suggest. The reason for this is that pure matter in its forms are elements, which can react with each other to create different substances, but cannot create a principle of life. On the other end of the scale, newly dead creatures, if taken by natural death, have the same physical state a second after death than when alive. Really quite silly, this materialist position is.
I'd like to think that after all this discussion, you're more open to seeing the obvious fact that there is a God. It's so damn evident, it's rediculous. I've used metaphysical arguments, ontological arguments, religious arguments, whatever. I'm still astounded that you consider yourself an atheist.


Being naturally a questioner I do take this whole thing very seriously. As far as I can tell I have two choices with my purpose in life. I can use my energy to try to find out if God exists and then try to figure out what purpose he has for me. Or I can try develop my own purpose in life that works just as well. Either way takes a lot of time and energy.

If I choose option one and if turns out there is no god or that he doesn't have a purpose for me then I spent my entire life searching for something that isn't there. If he does exist and has a philosophy for me then mabye I finially find out what God wanted me to do with my life. In this case I get to find out what God wanted me to do.
If I choose option two I spend my entire life developing and refining my own purpose in life. I live a long happy life and die with no regrets.

Option one is a search with a giant gamble attached. Option two is a method that yealds a result. I do not see a reason to search for someone else to tell me what I should do with my life. I am perfectly able to decide what to do with my life on my own.

I created the thread assuming God exists to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. I was trying to direct the conversation in a direction I had not heard before.

Even if life exists after death, and I have no idea if it does or what form it takes, then there is nothing wrong with living a good life here. If I am a good person and live a life as a good person what I'm becoming is an older and better person. Whatever happens after I die I will be able to meet it after a good long life. I can't imagine how living a long happy life will work against me.


Ok, since I'm tired after a long day, I won't pick it apart as usual. I will say that this can be approached from 2 angles. THe first which I throw out at everyone is the rational approach - which really is immutible. It is very evident that God is there.
However, we cannot prove this as knowledge we have absolute mastery of - it is clearly demonstrated, that's it. By this I mean that we can see what our metaphysical and ontological options are - and what God is not, but it would take an act of revelation to personally know this God. THis I can't just give you - that's part of your own life journey. I guess the question now would be - how bad do you want to know "the truth"? I don't know what God has in store for you - I can only speak for me - and even then I'm confused half the time on the matter, but I'm sure that if you "draw close to him", he will "draw close to you" as it says in scripture. This is not because you earn God's ear with your striving, its rather because you're putting yourself in a better position for listening. I can't offer much more than that, my knowedge only extends so far, but certainly far enough to deal with the realm of thinking and logic.

[Bhs Crew]

THis is absolutely impossible. "Life" cannot be corporeally generated - it is "the breath of life", if you will. Matter cannot create life. It may host it for this reality, but does not create it. Life cannot have started from a chemical soup as some would suggest. The reason for this is that pure matter in its forms are elements, which can react with each other to create different substances, but cannot create a principle of life.
How do we know that for sure? Everything in this world that we know of is made of these elements including us. We have not yet been able to create life from matter on our own but that doesn't mean it can't be done. It may just mean we haven't yet figured out how.

On the other end of the scale, newly dead creatures, if taken by natural death, have the same physical state a second after death than when alive. Really quite silly, this materialist position is.

Every dead creature has some physical thing which causes its death. Usually when we say natural death we mean some internal part of the body gave out. The reason that every creature eventually dies is because every body eventually breaks down to the point where it can no longer function.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Bhs - I'll give you one quick example b4 I'm off to work. Let's take for instance the notion of the human intellect. Can that be corporeal in nature? No. I really want to stress this incorporeal aspect - since you're dead set on this material dynamic. The human intellect, if it were material, could not think, as it would be limited by matter - thus, there would be no memory or reflection. Our thinking exists, in a way, outside time and space. Matter is transfixed in the present moment. Thus, if our thinking were the result of purely chemicals in the brain, we would be like the animals, not human beings. I have texts for you later on this.

As for bodily decomposition, naturally things change in the body to elicit death. I mentioned before that the body is able to sustain life on earth, but "life" per se cannot be like we see in van helsing for example - frankenstein. Without the action of God, matter is simply that - matter. The raw components of the universe are simply just substnaces. Our bodies are created in a certain way (something else you could consider), to carry us through life (we are our bodies), but are just a roughly 75 cents worth of carbon without a soul instilled within it. I'm going to get you on some nice texts regarding this. I'll look them up later when I get back.

[Bhs Crew]

Bhs - I'll give you one quick example b4 I'm off to work. Let's take for instance the notion of the human intellect. Can that be corporeal in nature? No. I really want to stress this incorporeal aspect - since you're dead set on this material dynamic. The human intellect, if it were material, could not think, as it would be limited by matter - thus, there would be no memory or reflection. Our thinking exists, in a way, outside time and space. Matter is transfixed in the present moment. Thus, if our thinking were the result of purely chemicals in the brain, we would be like the animals, not human beings. I have texts for you later on this.

There have been many animals shown to have basic memory or thought of some kind. Its not a complex as ours but its basicially the same process. A computer can "remember" stuff even though it is made up of only matter.There is no proof that our thought is caused by anything other then this matter that is us. People with brain injuries cannot think and reason as well as those without. Young children cannot think or reason as well as they can after their brains are fully developed. Obviously thinking is connected to the brain, because animals (or humans) with less developed brains cannot think or reason as well as those with more developed brains.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Bhs - you have affirmed that there is no such thing as mind-body dualism, which is commendable. Yet, for further text on this, for now, look at human intellection according to Aquinas (summa theologica 1.74-85). It discusses this topic - corporeality, and incorporeality in the human mind. Gotta get back to work - on lunch.

[Bhs Crew]

Bhs - you have affirmed that there is no such thing as mind-body dualism, which is commendable. Yet, for further text on this, for now, look at human intellection according to Aquinas (summa theologica 1.74-85). It discusses this topic - corporeality, and incorporeality in the human mind. Gotta get back to work - on lunch.

Ok that's a lot of text. I'll read it and get back to you (which is going to take some time, which fortunately I have right now). Anything in particular I'm looking for?

The stuff I'm reading are the "TREATISE ON MAN" right? Looks like 75 to 88 or so.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Realistically, you should start with the beginning of the text, right where he assumes that God does not exist. That will likely answer alot of your questions that may follow regarding the underpinnings of the treatise on man. He's quite systematic, and every question follows from the last one. So, do read it. His texts take a long time - several hours to even digest one article properly. You may also want to get into some Aristotle as a preface.

[Xaf]

5 pages now, guess i need to keep up on these things better.

[Xaf]

I'll say that our will is a free will, but within a system. This is called "fate". Yet, fate differs from desitny. Desitny is that which God wishes for you in your creation. It is his best plan for your life. Fate is those options of action that are open to you by "who you are". The ideal is to have fate and destiny as one. Within the temporal continuum, we are "moved", or infulenced by creature powers - that affect our desires. Our ultimate desire is for the good, but this can take many forms in our world. Our preference of desire is conditioned by early childhood preference and experience. We thus are "slaves" to the world and its elements, as they offer us fulfillment in our needs. Yet, by their nature, they do not fulfill that which God can fill.
At this stage, it is my belief that God's love enables free will, apart from the "variables". The Holy Spirit, when imbibed in a human soul, loosens and can eventually (or immediately) release one from the options of one's personal fate, into a higher calling. This we can call being ruled by your "Lord", which is Jesus operating in you by means of his sprit, which is in and through the earth now.
A perfect being would not create anything, as he is complete and would have no need to create, unless the creating of that thing is part of its greater perfection.
A perfect being would know what you will do and how you will do it and why you will do it. If you go to hell it would be Him sending you and your going to hell would be part of the greater perfection.
This seems rather contrary to the belief of free will.

Now i wont count anything out, because i am not perfect. But as far as i can tell free will is an illusion.




I'll qualify that by adding that our will - such as to buy a shiny car - is ruled by our "desire for God". The actions we take depend on our positioning in regard to God. Hence, those who hate God will choose things in the world - whatever that may be, and those who love God will be "ruled" by this desire to choose the good.
Loving or hating god is irrelevant. Its just some an emotion, some synapses firing a certain way. If god actually wanted you to do something you would do it. And you would want to do it.

[Galron Kincaid]

All i have to say in this thread is: i'm atheist.

I find my answers within myself, not in some vindicative deity.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

A perfect being would not create anything, as he is complete and would have no need to create, unless the creating of that thing is part of its greater perfection.


Indeed, I kicked off my argument back at the beginning by reference to this notion - that a being by all means perfect and complete need not create anything. However, what you have demonstrated here, and in your last paragraph is an understanding of God based on the human condition. Namely, the act of creating something in terms of human nature has its end in the betterment of out being, or happiness. Existence cannot precede essence, and thus it follows that it is God's nature to love - we could also say that God "is love", as creation (a positive movement) is native to his action. This is why God cannot be an impersonal "force", as a perfect system would have no need of creating imperfect species. As such, it is natural to think of God in utilitarian terms, as that is the way we think. However, speculative reason frees us from that duress.


A perfect being would know what you will do and how you will do it and why you will do it. If you go to hell it would be Him sending you and your going to hell would be part of the greater perfection.
This seems rather contrary to the belief of free will.


Does knowledge of our actions predetermine them? Knowing our predicament brought the Christ, who absorbs us into the Godhead. Yet, while corporeal bodies are moved by fate and circumstance, our wills, fueled by our intellects, are not moved by corporeal circumstance.


Loving or hating god is irrelevant. Its just some an emotion, some synapses firing a certain way. If god actually wanted you to do something you would do it. And you would want to do it.

You could only argue a point such as this with a correct definition of love. Regretably, the english language is impoverished in speaking of these things. Love is the most loosely used term in the english language. The Greeks, for instance, have several words for love. To name a few, we have "Eros", which is sensual, or base drives, "Stoge" (pronounced sto-gaay), which is a nurturing love, and "Agape", which is a willed giving of the self for the other. If love were just emotions, then yes, it would be irrelevant. However, when love is connected to the will (and the will always seeks the "last end" of the good), than this is essential when dealing with this issue.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

All i have to say in this thread is: i'm atheist.

I find my answers within myself, not in some vindicative deity.

So then, you are indeed a theist, only holding to belief in a vindicative god.

[Bhs Crew]

St. Thomas Aquinas needed a good editor. What is it about work like this that requires it to be written in as confusing a manner as possible. Mabye its just the translation. Mabye if I read The Summa Theologica in his native language I would find it clear and well written. Somehow I doubt it.

[Booms]

Bhs - I'll give you one quick example b4 I'm off to work. Let's take for instance the notion of the human intellect. Can that be corporeal in nature? No. I really want to stress this incorporeal aspect - since you're dead set on this material dynamic. The human intellect, if it were material, could not think, as it would be limited by matter - thus, there would be no memory or reflection. Our thinking exists, in a way, outside time and space. Matter is transfixed in the present moment. Thus, if our thinking were the result of purely chemicals in the brain, we would be like the animals, not human beings. I have texts for you later on this.

So what you're basically saying here is that medical science is actually wrong, despite the fact you have nothing to back up your claim nor any actual facts which say that the incorporeal is needed for intellect?

Does knowledge of our actions predetermine them? Knowing our predicament brought the Christ, who absorbs us into the Godhead. Yet, while corporeal bodies are moved by fate and circumstance, our wills, fueled by our intellects, are not moved by corporeal circumstance.

Hmmm...not gonna comment on Christ, but the second part is only true if your original post is true, which you have not proven. You just seem to make flowery statements with no depth or substance behind them.


I haven't gotten around to reading those texts yet, taking all Honors classes is pretty time consuming.

[Booms]

THis is absolutely impossible. "Life" cannot be corporeally generated - it is "the breath of life", if you will. Matter cannot create life. It may host it for this reality, but does not create it. Life cannot have started from a chemical soup as some would suggest. The reason for this is that pure matter in its forms are elements, which can react with each other to create different substances, but cannot create a principle of life. On the other end of the scale, newly dead creatures, if taken by natural death, have the same physical state a second after death than when alive. Really quite silly, this materialist position is.

Just found this after posting my previous response. Once again, you say something with no factual basis behind it.

Lets say you have one of those rubber bouncy balls. Its working just fine, bounces high and all that jazz. Then the ball is popped, all the air goes away and well guess what? The ball doesn't bounce anymore.

Now make that ball the human brain and have the air be the chemical reactions occuring. When you stop those reactions (which are causing electrical currents which make stuff happen), which could be due to the fact that not enough blood is getting to the brain or possibly no oxygen is getting to the brain (or a multitude of other things), the body dies.

Theres a rebuttal to your "newly dead creatures, if taken by natural death, have the same physical state a second after death than when alive" statement.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

St. Thomas Aquinas needed a good editor. What is it about work like this that requires it to be written in as confusing a manner as possible. Mabye its just the translation. Mabye if I read The Summa Theologica in his native language I would find it clear and well written. Somehow I doubt it.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the way it was written - technical language was essential for solid, systematic argumentation. He was doing philosophy since he was a young boy.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So what you're basically saying here is that medical science is actually wrong


I don't believe I implied any such thing. Yet, it would be a mistake on your part to assume that the present state of empirical medicinal science has discovered its limits.


despite the fact you have nothing to back up your claim nor any actual facts which say that the incorporeal is needed for intellect?


Who said I needed facts to support my arguments? That would imply that I'm an empiricist, which when dealing with topics such as this, would merely label me a skeptic. If that were true, my position would collapse in on itself because there is a "something" that demands a position. It may benefit you to dig up the thread where I discussed the nature of speculative reason - which begins with empirical data, and forms connections. Between the raw data and the argumentation of the incorporeality of the intellect, several steps must be made. By stating that "factual" proof must be direcly preceeding a position makes you out to be the fool, not I. For if you adhere to this simple way of apprehension, your knowledge will only be limited and confined to simple maxims.


Hmmm...not gonna comment on Christ, but the second part is only true if your original post is true, which you have not proven. You just seem to make flowery statements with no depth or substance behind them.


If you believe this to be the case, provide me with content worthy of time consuming argumentation. If not, you should read my posts further, and read the texts I assign, so you can understand where I am coming from. If this still fails you, ask me in humility, not in a post like that.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Just found this after posting my previous response. Once again, you say something with no factual basis behind it.


Refer to above. Again, never leapfrog an argument.


Lets say you have one of those rubber bouncy balls. Its working just fine, bounces high and all that jazz. Then the ball is popped, all the air goes away and well guess what? The ball doesn't bounce anymore.

Now make that ball the human brain and have the air be the chemical reactions occuring. When you stop those reactions (which are causing electrical currents which make stuff happen), which could be due to the fact that not enough blood is getting to the brain or possibly no oxygen is getting to the brain (or a multitude of other things), the body dies.


This analogy is piss poor for addressing what's at stake in this matter. The question we have arrived at is the mind-body question. You assume that it is completely corporeal. What facts have you taken, other than from the dogmatism of a college professor or medical textbook (or perhaps even worse, pop culture)? It is clear that we need the body to sustain us. Yet, reducing the mind to mere chemical reactions is the epitome of foolishness. There are so many facets of human existence and the intellect in particular that demand reference to the incorporeal. For now, allow me to ask you why you believe (or perhaps more rightly how you can believe) that the intellect of a human being is strictly corporeal in nature, dependent on and sustained in the actions of synaptic and chemical activities.


Theres a rebuttal to your "newly dead creatures, if taken by natural death, have the same physical state a second after death than when alive" statement.

If anything, you served to reinforce my position by gobbleygook. Your opportunity now is to tell me exactly why and how human existence is limited strictly to corporeality. I hope in the end you can take correction.

[Bhs Crew]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the way it was written - technical language was essential for solid, systematic argumentation. He was doing philosophy since he was a young boy.

Oh I didn't think he used that much technical language at all. My problem was phrasing, which could easily be the transilator's fault.

All I'm saying is a pragraph like this:
"A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like."

Can be rewritten to this, lose none of the meaning, and be much easier to read.
"If something is self evident it can be either known to us or not. Propositions are self evident because the essence of the subject includes the predicate. For example, "Man is an animal," as the essence of man contains animal. Therefore, if the essence of the predicate and the subject are known to all, the proposition will be evident to all. This is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, whose terms include being and non-being, whole and part, etc."

Now as long as the person reading it knows what a predicate and a proposition is they will be able to easily understand the text. The way it is written in the first version adds words needlessly in every sentance, which confuse the reader unnecessarily. This confussion weakens the author's point because many readers that might read his text are turned off by the style of writing. That's all I'm saying. The arguments are all presented logically, he just needed a good editor.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

This confussion weakens the author's point because many readers that might read his text are turned off by the style of writing. That's all I'm saying. The arguments are all presented logically, he just needed a good editor.

Confusion on the reader's part does not weaken the author's point at all. Rather, it is up to the readers to become better versed in critical language. But i do agree that he is a tough read. It's best to read Aristotle beforehand, as I mentioned earlier.

[Bartleby]

Holy crap... I can believe I read all this, but I can't help it because I'm a sucker for a good debate.

I would love to step in on this one, but last time I pissed away my entire work day in these forums, so I have to opt out.

One thing that did strike me as unfinished is regarding whether intellect is based on the material (phsyical) or metaphysical:

Emotions are not physical or material, but followed by emotions are repeated occurrences within the body and brain that we can track and measure when said emotions are occuring.

Is Love, Hate, Sorrow, etc bound by the laws of physics? No, but the electrical impulses that are transmitted through our body when we demonstrate these emotions are.

How about the intellect? The same applies.

These are examples of our metaphysical components. We can track the information as it goes to the brain, and how our response is then demonstrated by our body, but our response or our interpretation of the events is not physical. What we usually refer to as our response, take being happy for example is a smiling face and laughter, is just the physical demonstration of the feeling itself which is metaphysical.

You could crack open someone's head and find out what areas of the brain you need to stimulate to make their face exhibit raised eyebrows and a smile; but do you think that individual is actually happy about having their brain exposed and toyed with by Dr. Frankenstein?

The metaphysical emotion precedes and is seperate from the physical display of the emotion. And so it is with thinking. Thoughts are not bound by the physical body, but the fact that we are thinking can be tracked in physical world.

That's just a quick bit I wanted to contribute.

[Bhs Crew]

My only question is, "How are you sure that the emotions themselves are not entirely physical?" You say the information coming into the brain is physical. Wouldn't it follow that the emotions that take place when the brain recieves the information are physical as well? You seemed really sure, so I'm sure I'm just missing something. Inform please.

[Xaf]

I think it comes down to the fact that all philosophers are full of crap. All there is is the corpeal. We are no different than an animal. Free will is an illusion. We are just the sum of the the forces upon us and the matter we are made of. And no matter how many analogys you use you cant deny that. All this crap about the meaning of life is just a trick of evolution to continue our survival.

That is pretty much what ive come up with. And im sure many others have come to the same conclusion. I guess the real question is "what now?".

[Bhs Crew]

I guess the real question is "what now?".
We live our lives as we see fit. Usually that involves doing various actions that promote the short and long term happiness of ourselves and the people we care about.

Though I would think that the fact that we have choices to make, makes free will not an illusion. If it is one, then its a damn good one, and as long as I can continue to make my choices in life I'm not going to worry about it.

[Bartleby]

The signal of data that comes in from any of the 5 senses is physical (an electrical impulse taking data from the nerve end to the brain), the response to that data is not physical although we can see a physical manifestation of that response in the body.

Edit#1 - To answer BhsCrew's question. I hope that clarifies it. If you are looking for proofs of the metaphysical nature emotions I'm not confident in my ability to quote source documents accurately (maybe AoA could offer a text?) As far as a logical extensions go, maybe this would help: does the law of gravity apply to love? No, therefor it is not physical as it breaks the laws of physics. As I understand it though, the metaphysical affects the physical, but the physical cannot affect the metaphysical. Again as for sources, I know these issues have been debated (which is where I learned about of this), but I can't give you any place to read up on it and I'm loathe to google something to prove a point.

[Bhs Crew]

The signal of data that comes in from any of the 5 senses is physical (an electrical impulse taking data from the nerve end to the brain), the response to that data is not physical although we can see a physical manifestation of that response in the body.

Yes. My question was, how do we know that the response to the data is not physical?

[Eiger]

Who said I needed facts to support my arguments? That would imply that I'm an empiricist, which when dealing with topics such as this, would merely label me a skeptic. If that were true, my position would collapse in on itself because there is a "something" that demands a position. It may benefit you to dig up the thread where I discussed the nature of speculative reason - which begins with empirical data, and forms connections. Between the raw data and the argumentation of the incorporeality of the intellect, several steps must be made. By stating that "factual" proof must be direcly preceeding a position makes you out to be the fool, not I. For if you adhere to this simple way of apprehension, your knowledge will only be limited and confined to simple maxims.
I just had to say that the first sentence "Who said I needed facts to support my arguments?", just had me practically rolling on the floor. Despite the rest of the argument, this is will always be AoA's Achilles' heel.

[Bartleby]

I just cheated and used a dictionary to define emotion:

from Latin emovEre to remove, displace
a : the affective aspect of consciousness, FEELING
b : a state of feeling
c : a psychic and physical reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling and physiologically involving changes that prepare the body for immediate vigorous action

"c" pretty much covers what I just said a psychic (metaphysical) reaction involving physiological reactions (physical) that prepare the body for (in the case of fear) immediate vigorous action.

[Eiger]

Uhoh! Now you're going to be labeled a "Googler" and a sophist. Dictionaries are so post-modern...

[Bartleby]

To Eiger: I believe he's referring to having empirical evidence, which for arguments like this one that require speculative reasoning or ontological arguments to deduce rarely if ever is available because you're debating something that only has starting points in terms of data, but where the rest must be logically inferred.

I find AoA to be a very strong advocate of his position and while I may not always agree or want to agree with his position, you can't fault him for not knowing his stuff. You just took what he said way out of context either by your desire to have fun at his expense or your inability to understand that empirical arguments are unable to answer these kinds of questions. Congratulations.

Edit#1 - and to answer your "witty" remark regarding me, I will answer with an equally intelligent response:

Suck it.

[Eiger]

Yup, I know what he's talking about. But you gotta admit that context or not, that sentence was pretty darn funny. It also is emblematic of why it's a pain in the butt to argue with him. He knows his stuff, but his is a paradigm which I believe is largely incorrect and he is not open to other points of view because his is the only correct one. Therefore engaging him in debate is rather pointless.

As for my remarks regarding the dictionary - just relating a typical AoA comment regarding such actions. So if you've got a beef - it's with him, hehe.

[Bartleby]

As for my remarks regarding the dictionary - just relating a typical AoA comment regarding such actions.

Fair enough, but how often does one get to say "Suck it" in the middle of a debate? I guess I just couldn't resist.

[Eiger]

Fair enough, but how often does one get to say "Suck it" in the middle of a debate? I guess I just couldn't resist.
That's cool. I enjoyed it. ;)

[Bhs Crew]

from Latin emovEre to remove, displace
a : the affective aspect of consciousness, FEELING
b : a state of feeling
c : a psychic and physical reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling and physiologically involving changes that prepare the body for immediate vigorous action

"c" pretty much covers what I just said a psychic (metaphysical) reaction involving physiological reactions (physical) that prepare the body for (in the case of fear) immediate vigorous action.

Huh. The one I looked up just said:
Emotion
Noun
1. Any strong feeling

Mabye we should argue over which dictionary is better. I believe mine is.

[Bartleby]

I used merriam webster online

[Bhs Crew]

I used merriam webster online
I used the websters online dictionary: the rosetta edition.
Mine is clearly superior because it agrees with me.

[Booms]

The signal of data that comes in from any of the 5 senses is physical (an electrical impulse taking data from the nerve end to the brain), the response to that data is not physical although we can see a physical manifestation of that response in the body.

Edit#1 - To answer BhsCrew's question. I hope that clarifies it. If you are looking for proofs of the metaphysical nature emotions I'm not confident in my ability to quote source documents accurately (maybe AoA could offer a text?) As far as a logical extensions go, maybe this would help: does the law of gravity apply to love? No, therefor it is not physical as it breaks the laws of physics. As I understand it though, the metaphysical affects the physical, but the physical cannot affect the metaphysical. Again as for sources, I know these issues have been debated (which is where I learned about of this), but I can't give you any place to read up on it and I'm loathe to google something to prove a point.

That thing about love is a load of ****. Emotions are mental. Is "2+2=4" affected by gravity? No, but its not metaphysical. Our minds have evolved past Desire and Pain, but most of our emotions still are dependant upon those. For example, you get sad when something that you desire goes away.

I can't find where the source is, and this may not be true, but I remember reading somewhere (from a credible source) that there was once experiment done to rats so that when they pushed a button they became happy (because they put chips into the rats). The experiment DID work, and what actually happened was the rat died because it would rather push the button than eat or drink.

[Booms]

Confusion on the reader's part does not weaken the author's point at all. Rather, it is up to the readers to become better versed in critical language. But i do agree that he is a tough read. It's best to read Aristotle beforehand, as I mentioned earlier.

Actually, confusing your audience does weaken your argument. Try winning a debate tournament if you confuse all of the judges.

Arguments are presented to an audience, and it is up to the person presenting to make sure that their audience can understand them.

[Booms]

Who said I needed facts to support my arguments? That would imply that I'm an empiricist, which when dealing with topics such as this, would merely label me a skeptic. If that were true, my position would collapse in on itself because there is a "something" that demands a position. It may benefit you to dig up the thread where I discussed the nature of speculative reason - which begins with empirical data, and forms connections. Between the raw data and the argumentation of the incorporeality of the intellect, several steps must be made. By stating that "factual" proof must be direcly preceeding a position makes you out to be the fool, not I. For if you adhere to this simple way of apprehension, your knowledge will only be limited and confined to simple maxims.

Your empirical data stemmed from a claim that a newly dead body was exactly the same as the previously living form of that body. Which is wrong, because the dead body is missing something from the living form, be it a certain amount of blood, oxygen or whatever needed to keep the body alive.

AoA...I can usually deal with your tone (when I'm in a good mood, but I currently am not). But you seriously need to turn down your attitude. You are arrogant. You are condescending. You do sound holier-than-thou. Almost everyone who isn't used to dealing with you thinks so, and many of the people that do consistently read your posts think so as well. Just because you have read a countless number of philosophy books doesn't mean that you are better than everyone else, and it doesn't mean that you're unwavering position is correct (especially when you can't truly support it).

The main thing that seperates you from everyone else is that they're willing to listen to your arguments without trampling all over them, they're receptive to new ideas. You, on the other hand, are way to narrow-minded. You're in your twenties (right?) and already unwilling to change your views.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I think it comes down to the fact that all philosophers are full of crap. All there is is the corpeal. We are no different than an animal. Free will is an illusion. We are just the sum of the the forces upon us and the matter we are made of. And no matter how many analogys you use you cant deny that. All this crap about the meaning of life is just a trick of evolution to continue our survival.

That is pretty much what ive come up with. And im sure many others have come to the same conclusion. I guess the real question is "what now?".

Heh, that's a good question. The answer will only come when you disregard your last paragraph.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I just had to say that the first sentence "Who said I needed facts to support my arguments?", just had me practically rolling on the floor. Despite the rest of the argument, this is will always be AoA's Achilles' heel.

Apparently you hit your head on the table when you fell off the chair. Try reading the remainder of the paragraph.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

It also is emblematic of why it's a pain in the butt to argue with him. He knows his stuff, but his is a paradigm which I believe is largely incorrect and he is not open to other points of view because his is the only correct one. Therefore engaging him in debate is rather pointless.


If you believe me to be incorrect, I invite you to offer a fitting rebuke. Thus far, you did not meet my challenges with argumentation, but only with pale humor. Naturally, I would not be open to childish ways of thinking. I would hope that you would be open to expand your own horizons beyond empiricism. Sadly, when it comes down to it, you just state "I disagree", and that's as far as it goes. Never once have I backed down from an argument. If you and your ilk wish to label me arrogant or w/e, that's your business.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Actually, confusing your audience does weaken your argument.


The inherent argument structure and content per se cannot be weakend by another's perception thereof.


Try winning a debate tournament if you confuse all of the judges.


I would not enter a debate chaired by fools who could not understand the subject matter or its presentation. Sometimes I wonder why I continue to post on this thread.. :uhhuh:


Arguments are presented to an audience, and it is up to the person presenting to make sure that their audience can understand them.

Yes, I definitely agree with that. Yet, it's up to the audience in turn to be educated enough to participate in the forum (being capable of understanding the terms), and to request further help when needed. The problem many forum goers here make is to claim that if they cannot understand it, it's bullshyt. If that's your attitude, get off the thread.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Your empirical data stemmed from a claim that a newly dead body was exactly the same as the previously living form of that body. Which is wrong, because the dead body is missing something from the living form, be it a certain amount of blood, oxygen or whatever needed to keep the body alive.


Granted, there will be some differences in this area - I believe we have come to the conclusion that the upkeep of the body is necessary to "sustain life". However, what is it that we are sustaining? I remember asking you last time to come up with criteria as to how "life" is completely corporeal in nature, and how it could not be incorporeal. Have you done this yet? Tell me how the intellect is entirely corporeal.


AoA...I can usually deal with your tone (when I'm in a good mood, but I currently am not). But you seriously need to turn down your attitude.


The reason for my elevated tone was to counter a rediculous notion you posted earlier (that and I was generally in a taciturn mood). It was another one of these blurbs explaining how I never used "facts" to support my arguments etc. In your acknowledgement of my abilities, would you not think it absolutely foolish that the issue of empirical data would be simply overlooked? I'm sorry Booms, but that statement made me irate, and yes I do have a short fuse at times. As I said before, I don't intend any personal disrespect, but every now and then expect some heat.


You are arrogant. You are condescending. You do sound holier-than-thou. Almost everyone who isn't used to dealing with you thinks so, and many of the people that do consistently read your posts think so as well.


Honestly, I don't give a rat's a$$ how posters view my character. I've mentioned time and again that it's about the content, not the tone, and I will do absolutely nothing to alter my personality, so tough shyt. I get this kind of reply from some of you because answers to my arguments are found wanting. Furthermore, who is this army in which you speak? You, Eiger, and a few others I'm sure, but certainly not the majority. That's another fool assumption. An example of someone who disagrees with me but still reads the texts I assign is BhsCrew. If I'm that arrogant and condescending, how could I have built a mainstream guild in just 2 months? Sheesh Booms..


Just because you have read a countless number of philosophy books doesn't mean that you are better than everyone else, and it doesn't mean that you're unwavering position is correct (especially when you can't truly support it).


But it does mean I know more than you, by virtue of my studies. That of course does not raise my inherent dignity beyond you or anyone else, but it does entitle me to the former accolade. Does this bother you? If so, start reading texts.


The main thing that seperates you from everyone else is that they're willing to listen to your arguments without trampling all over them, they're receptive to new ideas.


The main thing that separates me from those of your persuasion is the fact that I argue points objectively, and am able to support them with text. Intellectual honesty demands that we "discover" truth. There are times when I have been corrected on these forums, but these are precious few. This is because most people here are stuck on novelty as a viable solution to enlightenment. People gave up on the notion of universal truth, and believe that anything "new" will provide a better path. In truth however, it's more of the same gobbleygook, regurgitated over and over. Show me your new ideas..


You, on the other hand, are way to narrow-minded. You're in your twenties (right?) and already unwilling to change your views.

I'm in my late 20's. Where did my views come from? Why are they solid against the sophistry I see on this forum, by and large? Would a closed-minded person necessarily accrue the wide range of knowledge and reasoning power I have? I think not. I would offer that they would sound more like you do now, with your emotionally-charged rebuttals.

What is characteristic of a "close-minded" person is one who, with their own narrow understanding, reacts childishly to anything beyond their own scope. I make an attempt to answer all relevant posts I can. You should do likewise, according to its content. You've been good so far, but that remark on how my arguments are baseless opened hell's gates.

[Eiger]

If you believe me to be incorrect, I invite you to offer a fitting rebuke. Thus far, you did not meet my challenges with argumentation, but only with pale humor. Naturally, I would not be open to childish ways of thinking. I would hope that you would be open to expand your own horizons beyond empiricism. Sadly, when it comes down to it, you just state "I disagree", and that's as far as it goes. Never once have I backed down from an argument. If you and your ilk wish to label me arrogant or w/e, that's your business.
Oh AoA, what's the point? To win an argument? Woohoo! To look better in the eyes of others? To get in the last word?

Oh, and time and again you mention how it's the content not the tone - and time and again we tell you that your tone turns most of us off to your content. This is certainly an area where my age grants me some wisdom and your youthful petulance precipitates the failure of your message to reach people.

And yes, a closed minded person could/would accrue a vast range of knowledge - and use it to bolster his narrow agenda as you do. A closed minded person is one who believes so totally in his own perspective that he discounts and dismisses those of others. Your usual response is to tell someone that they are wrong - rather than saying something like "well that may be possible, but I disagree for these reasons". That approach would get you and your message far further as just generally be nicer.

Here's a variety of basic points on which we disagree. I might be a little off on some of your beliefs, but by now probably not too far off. I'd say we've got irreconcilable paradigms:

-You believe there's a creator, God. I believe in neither.

-You believe there is a natural order to the world. I believe that the world is chaotic and that order is mostly man made or coincidental in nature or is a natural byproduct of an efficient means to accomplish something.

-You believe that perfection is possible, I think it's pretty darn unlikely, though not impossible regarding some simple things.

-If there were a god - he's definitely not perfect.

-I kinda doubt that we're made in God's image. Don't know whether you believe this or not. But I'd say it's pretty darn unlikely that a god would look like a homo sapien (why would he even need a body? I'd imagine that he'd accomplish things via pure force of will or such. And if he's got a body - that means he's gotta be hanging out somewhere physical, eh? But I digress).

Oh crap - apparently we've got a little crisis here at work. Gotta go...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Oh AoA, what's the point? To win an argument? Woohoo! To look better in the eyes of others? To get in the last word?


There is no sense in assuming motive.


Oh, and time and again you mention how it's the content not the tone - and time and again we tell you that your tone turns most of us off to your content. This is certainly an area where my age grants me some wisdom and your youthful petulance precipitates the failure of your message to reach people.


Fair enough, I agree that some people are turned off by my tone, it's one of my faults. I would hope most know my temperment by now.



And yes, a closed minded person could/would accrue a vast range of knowledge - and use it to bolster his narrow agenda as you do.


Since I have not stated an agenda, how did you come up with this?


A closed minded person is one who believes so totally in his own perspective that he discounts and dismisses those of others. Your usual response is to tell someone that they are wrong - rather than saying something like "well that may be possible, but I disagree for these reasons". That approach would get you and your message far further as just generally be nicer.



I'm not here to be nice, but to be consistent. Further, there have been many occasions where I have agreed with part, or all of another poster's argument. If not however, than yes, I will say otherwise.


Here's a variety of basic points on which we disagree. I might be a little off on some of your beliefs, but by now probably not too far off. I'd say we've got irreconcilable paradigms:

-You believe there's a creator, God. I believe in neither.

-You believe there is a natural order to the world. I believe that the world is chaotic and that order is mostly man made or coincidental in nature or is a natural byproduct of an efficient means to accomplish something.

-You believe that perfection is possible, I think it's pretty darn unlikely, though not impossible regarding some simple things.

-If there were a god - he's definitely not perfect.

-I kinda doubt that we're made in God's image. Don't know whether you believe this or not. But I'd say it's pretty darn unlikely that a god would look like a homo sapien (why would he even need a body? I'd imagine that he'd accomplish things via pure force of will or such. And if he's got a body - that means he's gotta be hanging out somewhere physical, eh? But I digress).

Oh crap - apparently we've got a little crisis here at work. Gotta go...


If you desire, we can discuss those later. I'm at work as well.

[Bartleby]

I used the websters online dictionary: the rosetta edition.
Mine is clearly superior because it agrees with me.
HAHA... whatever floats your boat. :thumbsup:

Oh yeah, and mine's better because it's more complete. :king:

[Bhs Crew]

HAHA... whatever floats your boat. :thumbsup:

Oh yeah, and mine's better because it's more complete. :king:

Seriously though, emotion could still be entirely physical. I'm not saying that it is for sure, because I have no way to measure or prove that, so I don't know anything for sure.

However I also don't see any way to prove that emotion couldn't be entirely physical, which leaves the possibility open.

[Eiger]

Seriously though, emotion could still be entirely physical. I'm not saying that it is for sure, because I have no way to measure or prove that, so I don't know anything for sure.

However I also don't see any way to prove that emotion couldn't be entirely physical, which leaves the possibility open.
Emotion is chemical, hence mood altering drugs. Ever know a manic depressive or a bi-polar person? Prescribed drugs really work on controlling their moods and emotions.

[Bartleby]

That thing about love is a load of ****. Emotions are mental. Is "2+2=4" affected by gravity? No, but its not metaphysical. Our minds have evolved past Desire and Pain, but most of our emotions still are dependant upon those. For example, you get sad when something that you desire goes away.

I can't find where the source is, and this may not be true, but I remember reading somewhere (from a credible source) that there was once experiment done to rats so that when they pushed a button they became happy (because they put chips into the rats). The experiment DID work, and what actually happened was the rat died because it would rather push the button than eat or drink.
Metaphysical = is transcendent or beyond the 5 senses, but most people think it means some new age garbage. In fact any system of principles underlying a particular study or subject is metaphysical. Philosophy for instance.

5 senses = touch, taste, sound, sight, and smell

Can you smell, touch, taste, hear, or see math? No. Same thing with emotions.

I know that thing about the mice, and if you recall they put a chip in that caused their body to release endorphines, much like what occurs when eating, drinking, and having sex, on command.

Our body is geared to release endorphines, which make you feel good or happy, when you do something that furthers you physical existence.

That button obviously caused the rat's body to release more than enough endorphines to allow the rat to "happily" die of starvation.

I have a feeling if you were allowed to feed yourself as much morphine as you could you too would die of starvation simply because you'd be high on endorphines the whole time and wouldn't notice you needed to eat.

Anyway, what occurs in the physical world prompts our responses, but does not control them. Desire and Pain will certainly evoke a response from an individual, but you cannot control the response it will ellicit. You can predict, but not control. Example: I could hire a hooker to step on your nuts with a stilleto heel. I predict you'd scream out in pain like a sissy girl with a skinned knee. However, you could be one of those wierdos for whom that action would ellicit happy response. And those people do exist.

Stimulus -> Emotional Response -> Physiological Response

Stimulus is physical -> Emotional Response is not physical -> Physiological Response is physical

[Bartleby]

Emotion is chemical, hence mood altering drugs. Ever know a manic depressive or a bi-polar person? Prescribed drugs really work on controlling their moods and emotions.Chemical imbalances preclude sentient thought. Manic depressive's have very little ability to choose their responses because their stimulus is all screwed up. The mood altering drugs purpose is not to make them happy, but to correct the chemical imbalance thus allowing them to properly receive, organize and understand the stimulus (after which comes the emotional response).

Edit#1 - The chemical part of emotions has to do with the ability to send, order and receive data.

[Bartleby]

I guess I'm not explaining this very well, so I'll try to clarify what I've been talking about.

Sentient Response is two part: 1)metaphysical and 2)physical occuring in that order.
1) The individual makes a decision as to what action to take based on the stimulus recieved (the decision or emotional response, like anger is metaphysical)
2) The brain sends a signal to the appropriate parts of the body to carry out that decision (the brain sending out data is the physical response, which we can measure like a scowl, shortened breath, and muscle tension - the demonstration of anger)

Non Sentient Response: Is merely stimulus -> physical response
Example: You apply a current to a specific section of a subject's brain and their right index finger twitches.
Edit#1 - In the case of chemically imbalanced individuals I would argue that the imbalance disrupts the flow of data to and from the brain such that the individual cannot regularly make a sentient response until the imbalance is repaired.

[Booms]

Bartleby:

I apologize, I misunderstood the orginal post. When you said that emotions are not physical or material (which I agree, they aren't), I somehow managed to think you threw in the word "world" after material or physical. Probably because this is a God thread, but whatever.

But then even if emotions and intellect are not physical objects you can hold in your hand, it still doesn't mean that they aren't completely derived from the material world.

They're chemical reactions in the brain, a response to a stimulus (which is derived from the physical world).

So even though emotions and intellect are metaphysical in a sense (although a chemical reaction is actually physical), it doesn't mean that they're derived from an incorporeal source (such as God).

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I am back.


Here's a variety of basic points on which we disagree. I might be a little off on some of your beliefs, but by now probably not too far off. I'd say we've got irreconcilable paradigms:



What I find common amongst your premises is that they are built on denial of one sort or another. So, I'd say that there really is no two paradigms (there is, but there is not in that one paradigm is a denial of the other). Do you have a "positive paradigm", or a technical explanation for the underpinnings of your positions?


-You believe there's a creator, God. I believe in neither.


Well, we certainly know that for sure. So, you are not an agnostic, but an athiest? What then is your position on existential positions? I believe that the manifold existence is created, and sustained, by a prime mover. In my scholarship and reasoning, I simply see it as so absolutely evident, I cannot fathom as to why someone would think otherwise. Strange, no? Even atheist philosophers gave assent to a prime mover, they were just averse to the revelation of Christ. Then, there is the "extreme atheist" camp, such as Marx, etc, who did not touch on metaphysics whatsoever. The problem with this is that people read them, and are influenced, but there is a whole other realm which is simply overlooked and not called into question. Every position has its underpinnings. Sadly, these days, metaphysicians like myself are called narrow minded, because we have uncovered this sub-strata that "demands" an ordered explanation of the empirical content you would set as your foundation.
All that being said, I never once stated that the existence of God could be "proven", as that would demand a structure of being capable of apprehending God with its own resources/faculties, and humans are indeed incapable of that by means of our adherence to corporeality. Yet, reason, which is an incorporeal aspect, allows us to glean the incorporeal natures from the natures of the corporeal. I'll explain that more at your prompting.



-You believe there is a natural order to the world. I believe that the world is chaotic and that order is mostly man made or coincidental in nature or is a natural byproduct of an efficient means to accomplish something.


Here, your folly lies in the affirmation of your own denial. One cannot define an aspect of chaos without reference to order, and vice versa. Much like the sceptic cannot doubt something, without believing something else. You may want to meditate on that maxim.
If man makes order (as he does play a part), what are the building blocks of that order? If you were to build a brick house, you would manipulate and order the bricks right? The bricks are already ordered previously by the brickmaker. This can be traced back to tiny molecules, which in themselves have their own distinct form and order. If you like chemistry, check out the periodic table for another example. When you mix baking soda and vinegar, you always get a fizz. Another example of self-evident nominal aspects in nature.



-You believe that perfection is possible, I think it's pretty darn unlikely, though not impossible regarding some simple things.



THere you go again with affirming that denial. There is that notion of perfection - which you made reference to, and there are also notions of good, better, best, etc. While we may assign these norms arbitrarily, there is indeed an aspect of perfection we see in things. THis inherent structure can be traced to an ultimate source, towards which all things are directed. Again, more later if prompted.


-If there were a god - he's definitely not perfect.



Most atheists I talk to, when it comes down to it, do not discard God because of rational arguments (if they do, 5 minutes with me - considering they are honest- will change that). In the end, it ALWAYS comes down to what kind of God we're dealing with. People say they experience inconsistencies in their definitions of imperfection, perfection, and what their experience of God is, or lack thereof. I would say that it may indeed be the same in your case. It is interesting to note that most agnostics will try everyting else - like buddhism, new age, etc, before coming to Christianity.


-I kinda doubt that we're made in God's image. Don't know whether you believe this or not. But I'd say it's pretty darn unlikely that a god would look like a homo sapien (why would he even need a body? I'd imagine that he'd accomplish things via pure force of will or such. And if he's got a body - that means he's gotta be hanging out somewhere physical, eh? But I digress).



Well, if being made in God's image is to liken God with the appearance of a homo sapien as you say, then I do not believe that. If God were corporeal, he would be limited, and thus not God. God is "spirit", a term to describe beyond the corporeal. Force and will could be substituted as you say, with further definition. I would say that being made in God's image has more to do with sentience, or "being".


P.S. - You also mentioned that emotions are chemical. I need not touch that one, as Bartleby looks like he's more than capable of handling that position. Chemical reactions predispose the body to a certain aspect - like mood altering drugs, etc, but in our will, we are free to control our behavior, and also our emotions in many cases.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

First you said:


They're chemical reactions in the brain, a response to a stimulus (which is derived from the physical world).


Then you said:


So even though emotions and intellect are metaphysical in a sense (although a chemical reaction is actually physical), it doesn't mean that they're derived from an incorporeal source (such as God).

Something cannot be metaphysical "in a sense". It is either one or the other. Now, metaphysics relies on the corporeal to give it further definition, as bodily states influence our decision making, but it cannot be strictly corporeal. You are correct in stating that emotions do not come directly from an incorporeal source, but they are transmitted through the bodily senses. In a human being, all intellection begins in the senses. Yet, without incorporeality, there could be no reasoning. For reference, aquinas argues in Summa Theologica 1.74-85.1 that the agent intellect takes what the body experiences and makes connections, etc.
The body is our bridge to this world, but it is not our all. Without the incorporeal aspect of the human spirit, there could be no will. Some of you have said free will is an illusion. Yet, any small choice, such as your decision to continue reading this, is a choice made by your "soul", which is incorporeal. Whether one is a determinist or not, choices are made, no matter how small, on a daily basis.
Without the corporeal aspect, there could be no reasoning. Reason extends beyond time and space, and connects the corporeal with other corporeal aspects, creating notions and ideas, as bartleby pointed out by referring to mathematics (it was this notion that spurred rennisance philiosophy). We can also see that those who do not live by reason live by their whimsical desires, which could be said to be slavery to chemical reactions, etc.(some people live like animals, obeying base instinct and desire - as such, animals are called "material souls"). Even Buddha was wise enough to realize that desire was the root of all problems (though this must be qualified with "disordered desire".).

[Bartleby]

But then even if emotions and intellect are not physical objects you can hold in your hand, it still doesn't mean that they aren't completely derived from the material world.Derived? I think we're arguing over terminology?
Emotions are absolutely not derived from the material world. They are our conscious (chosen) or unconscious (immediate/programmed through repetition) response to a given stimulus. That does not mean they are derived from the stimulus, but it does mean that they do need a stimulus to be elicited.
Stimulus -> Emotional Response -> Physical manifestation of the Emotional Response

They're chemical reactions in the brain, a response to a stimulus (which is derived from the physical world).The chemical reaction is the body sending information to the brain and the brain telling the body to execute the emotional response. The stimulus and the physical manifestation of the emotional response exists as measureable matter, not the emotional response itself.
So even though emotions and intellect are metaphysical in a sense
Not in a sense, they are by definition.

(although a chemical reaction is actually physical)which again is the only the transmission of the stimulus and the physiological response[/quote]
it doesn't mean that they're derived from an incorporeal source (such as God).
I can't speak to the source of emotion beyond that it is not measurable by anything in the physical world. My personal belief is that emotions and intellect are evidence of the soul.

This is also why I believe some animals that I have seen exhibit what I believe to be emotional responses do indeed have an immortal soul (immortal meaning beyond mortality and the physical world). I believe few animals have exhibited signs of self-awareness, but I have also come to believe that maybe they merely have yet to evolve to that point.

That's just my belief so let's please not turn this into a debate on anthropomorphism.

[Booms]

I can't speak to the source of emotion beyond that it is not measurable by anything in the physical world. My personal belief is that emotions and intellect are evidence of the soul.

This is also why I believe some animals that I have seen exhibit what I believe to be emotional responses do indeed have an immortal soul (immortal meaning beyond mortality and the physical world). I believe few animals have exhibited signs of self-awareness, but I have also come to believe that maybe they merely have yet to evolve to that point.


You're saying emotions aren't chemical reactions. I'm saying they are. Neither of us understands the human brain to the fullest extent (no one does), so neither of us can truly argue either way.

Just as when you get drunk the way you think is changed, the same thing is what happens with emotions. They change the way you react to situations. The only differences is that one effect is induced through means outside the body, while the other is all internal.

[Bartleby]

You're saying emotions aren't chemical reactions. I'm saying they are. Neither of us understands the human brain to the fullest extent (no one does), so neither of us can truly argue either way.I can argue 'til I'm blue in the face if that's what floats my boat :surprise:
Ha, in your face! :winner:

Just as when you get drunk the way you think is changed, the same thing is what happens with emotions. They change the way you react to situations. The only differences is that one effect is induced through means outside the body, while the other is all internal.It has already been demonstrated by science that the reason you act the way you do when you are drunk is because the alcohol affects the nervous system directly by binding to different neurotransmitters in the brain and body thus preventing data to flow as normal between the neurons.

Actually, I should talk about neurons first. The central nervous system, including the brain, is made up of neurons. A network of billions of them to be more accurate. They are like on-off switches similar to how a computer works. When they are on, they transmit signals and when they are off, they are mostly dormant. These neurons are extremely dependent upon the availability of certain chemicals. If these chemicals are not available in the proper balanced amounts, the ability of the neurons to function is inhibited. This leads to modifications in behavior and the ability of the brain to regulate other bodily processes. Alcohol as I said before, disrupts the balance of these chemicals.

Therefor when you are drunk, your brain isn't properly sending or receiving data (you are effectively brain damaged :thumbsup: ), thus your ability to receive stimulus, reason and then respond is severly hampered. This is different than to say that the alcohol determines your response.

[Booms]

It does determine your response to a certain extent. By not properply sending/recieving data your response is altered, and the improper workaging (yay for made up words!) of the brain is due to the alchohol.

Along the same lines, people that are angry do not always act rationally. Rational thought is inhibited. How is this different than alchohol aside from the fact that the changes that come from anger are all internal while the changes that come from alchohol come from a source outside of the body.

[Bartleby]

Silly Booms, that doesn't affect your actual response, it affects your ability to make a response.

And yes workaging is a good word... I'll talk to webster's dictionary about including it.

Anger is the emotion and the irrational actions you undertake is a direct result of your decision to not use reason, even though you know you should. When people are angry they do things they know they shouldn't do, the emotion of anger doesn't make them do something bad, but they choose to ignore what they know to be wrong.

Gotta go, I'll talk about this later.

[Eiger]

A) What I find common amongst your premises is that they are built on denial of one sort or another. So, I'd say that there really is no two paradigms (there is, but there is not in that one paradigm is a denial of the other). Do you have a "positive paradigm", or a technical explanation for the underpinnings of your positions?

B) Well, we certainly know that for sure. So, you are not an agnostic, but an athiest? What then is your position on existential positions? I believe that the manifold existence is created, and sustained, by a prime mover. In my scholarship and reasoning, I simply see it as so absolutely evident, I cannot fathom as to why someone would think otherwise. Strange, no? Even atheist philosophers gave assent to a prime mover, they were just averse to the revelation of Christ. Then, there is the "extreme atheist" camp, such as Marx, etc, who did not touch on metaphysics whatsoever. The problem with this is that people read them, and are influenced, but there is a whole other realm which is simply overlooked and not called into question. Every position has its underpinnings. Sadly, these days, metaphysicians like myself are called narrow minded, because we have uncovered this sub-strata that "demands" an ordered explanation of the empirical content you would set as your foundation.
All that being said, I never once stated that the existence of God could be "proven", as that would demand a structure of being capable of apprehending God with its own resources/faculties, and humans are indeed incapable of that by means of our adherence to corporeality. Yet, reason, which is an incorporeal aspect, allows us to glean the incorporeal natures from the natures of the corporeal. I'll explain that more at your prompting.

Here, your folly lies in the affirmation of your own denial. One cannot define an aspect of chaos without reference to order, and vice versa. Much like the sceptic cannot doubt something, without believing something else. You may want to meditate on that maxim.

C) THere you go again with affirming that denial. There is that notion of perfection - which you made reference to, and there are also notions of good, better, best, etc. While we may assign these norms arbitrarily, there is indeed an aspect of perfection we see in things. THis inherent structure can be traced to an ultimate source, towards which all things are directed. Again, more later if prompted.

D) Most atheists I talk to, when it comes down to it, do not discard God because of rational arguments (if they do, 5 minutes with me - considering they are honest- will change that). In the end, it ALWAYS comes down to what kind of God we're dealing with. People say they experience inconsistencies in their definitions of imperfection, perfection, and what their experience of God is, or lack thereof. I would say that it may indeed be the same in your case. It is interesting to note that most agnostics will try everyting else - like buddhism, new age, etc, before coming to Christianity.
A) It seems to me that they are two sides to the same coin and I could ask the same question of you. Order could just as easily be a denial of chaos. Whether one is "positive" or not is merely our perception of what positive and negative is.

B) I'm a true blue atheist. Always have been. No agnosticism here. Just as you see a prime mover as absolutely evident, I have the same feelings in that I can't fathom why anyone would rationally believe in one. I've always believed that since I was a small child (and surrounded by the typical full indoctrination into Catholicism, no less).

I can understand the need to understand the workings of the world in an ordered fashion. That seems to be a basic human need and could represent a failing of our mind's abilities to understand. We need to see things in an orderly fashion, in a logical way to understand them - to connect the dots so to speak. And some aspects of our world are ordered - I do not deny that. Chemistry is a prime example and can be explained fairly concretely. However, once you enter the biological world things change a bit. Perhaps it's because our knowledge is not yet advanced enough and probably that's mostly true. Once we gain full knowledge of biological processes, we'll probably find that it's quite ordered - and predictable, given the same set of parameters.

However, what I mean by chaos is not that things occur without order. So perhaps I'm using the wrong term. Rather I mean that since there is no prime mover, events such as evolution of species occur randomly and events such as earthquakes happen as natural responses to a set of physical criteria, and that behavior of animals is not pre-determined rather it is a result of complete free will and decisions made by that animal (or responses to stimuli depending on the abilities of the animal).

C) I only disagree regarding direction from an ultimate source. Certainly we have ideas of perfection. And can see an aspect in some things. But what have we ever found that's completely perfect? Yes, that's an empiric and skeptical approach, but it's a reasonable question.

D) Nope, I discard him. My lack of belief has got nothing to do with what kind of God we're dealing with. Though events in this world sure don't help any, hehe.

I've never been a searcher or tried other religions - though for my first marriage I did convert to Judaism since my (then future) wife's parents were going to disown her for marrying a non-Jew. It just kept the peace and the deal was that I didn't have to attend services (they just wanted to be able to tell their friends that all their children married Jews). I promptly returned to my old ways following the divorce (which btw had nothing to do whatsoever with religion).

No, I just don't see a single rational reason for believing in a god. Though for political purposes it is an excellent social control mechanism, I'll certainly grant that rational reason - at least for the movers and shakers, but that doesn't really count I don't think.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

A) It seems to me that they are two sides to the same coin and I could ask the same question of you. Order could just as easily be a denial of chaos. Whether one is "positive" or not is merely our perception of what positive and negative is.



Irrelevant. The main point is, you cannot have one without the other. Yet, order takes precedence, as it is by means of which that we can give things definition.


B) I'm a true blue atheist. Always have been. No agnosticism here. Just as you see a prime mover as absolutely evident, I have the same feelings in that I can't fathom why anyone would rationally believe in one. I've always believed that since I was a small child (and surrounded by the typical full indoctrination into Catholicism, no less).



Yes I know. Yet, what happened in your teaching in Catholicism?


I can understand the need to understand the workings of the world in an ordered fashion.


Need? Or Necessity? This is bigger than psychology I am sorry to say.


That seems to be a basic human need and could represent a failing of our mind's abilities to understand. We need to see things in an orderly fashion, in a logical way to understand them - to connect the dots so to speak. And some aspects of our world are ordered - I do not deny that.


As above. On a side note, we need order because our sould were made to desire and yearn for that which is perfect order. I never mentioned that yet, but there is yet another kind of argment we can touch on.


Chemistry is a prime example and can be explained fairly concretely. However, once you enter the biological world things change a bit. Perhaps it's because our knowledge is not yet advanced enough and probably that's mostly true. Once we gain full knowledge of biological processes, we'll probably find that it's quite ordered - and predictable, given the same set of parameters.


Surely, it's ordered.



However, what I mean by chaos is not that things occur without order. So perhaps I'm using the wrong term. Rather I mean that since there is no prime mover, events such as evolution of species occur randomly and events such as earthquakes happen as natural responses to a set of physical criteria, and that behavior of animals is not pre-determined rather it is a result of complete free will and decisions made by that animal (or responses to stimuli depending on the abilities of the animal).



In truth, without a prime mover, there could be no motion whatsoever. Why kick against the goad?? Any type of movement, inherent in nature, requires its creator and source.


C) I only disagree regarding direction from an ultimate source. Certainly we have ideas of perfection. And can see an aspect in some things. But what have we ever found that's completely perfect? Yes, that's an empiric and skeptical approach, but it's a reasonable question.


I don't know what is completely perfect - I have seen nothing yet. But, by virtue of inherent degrees of perfection, we can assent to an ultimate perfection.



D) Nope, I discard him. My lack of belief has got nothing to do with what kind of God we're dealing with. Though events in this world sure don't help any, hehe.



See? You cannot get away from it.


I've never been a searcher or tried other religions - though for my first marriage I did convert to Judaism since my (then future) wife's parents were going to disown her for marrying a non-Jew. It just kept the peace and the deal was that I didn't have to attend services (they just wanted to be able to tell their friends that all their children married Jews). I promptly returned to my old ways following the divorce (which btw had nothing to do whatsoever with religion).



:lol: That's hilarious.


No, I just don't see a single rational reason for believing in a god. Though for political purposes it is an excellent social control mechanism, I'll certainly grant that rational reason - at least for the movers and shakers, but that doesn't really count I don't think.

Well, you most certainly have not presented any rational reason - by a long shot - as to why assent to God is folly.

[Xaf]

Heh, that's a good question. The answer will only come when you disregard your last paragraph.
Agreed, but i cant. And thats why ive been so damn depressed lately. Its hard to get yourself motivated when you realize nothing can be accomplished.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Agreed, but i cant. And thats why ive been so damn depressed lately. Its hard to get yourself motivated when you realize nothing can be accomplished.

That would do it. I don't know what you mean by accomplishing anything - as in "chaning reality"? THen again, it's more meritorious to discover the correct perception of reality than change it.

[Havard]

Emotion is chemical, hence mood altering drugs. Ever know a manic depressive or a bi-polar person? Prescribed drugs really work on controlling their moods and emotions.

If emotions are completely chemical, why should society blame anyone for anything? "It's not their fault, they just have chemical imbalances. Here, have some drugs, it'll fix your problems." That is all b.s. People are responsible for their own behavior. It doesn't matter if chemicals are causing mood swings, what matters is what decisions people make with the choices they have. And until you are a complete vegetable or dead, you always have choices.

[Eiger]

If emotions are completely chemical, why should society blame anyone for anything? "It's not their fault, they just have chemical imbalances. Here, have some drugs, it'll fix your problems." That is all b.s. People are responsible for their own behavior. It doesn't matter if chemicals are causing mood swings, what matters is what decisions people make with the choices they have. And until you are a complete vegetable or dead, you always have choices.
That's a real nice point of view. I applaud your sensitivity. The bottom line is that those good old chemical imbalances really screw up a person's emotional makeup, their view of the world, and the choices they make. It's not an issue of responsibility or blame - it's one of do they work or not, do they improve people's lives and help them make better choices? And the answer is yes.

Just yesterday I was up in Vancouver taking my son to a child psychiatrist to discuss the impacts of his new medication. He is mildly autistic and has some problems controlling his anger. He's a wonderful kid - the kindest and most generous child (or person for that matter) I've ever known. However, his condition leads him to get very single-minded and overemotional and then angry at times. This new medication helps him control his anger and make better decisions.

I had a very good friend in college - an overachiever by any standard. He took graduate bio and chem courses while a sophomore, he took up photography and was showing in prestigious gallery six months later - he excelled at everything he did and had many friends. He was also manic depressive. Whenever he stopped taking his meds he could no longer sleep more than an hour a night. He got exceptionally depressed and worried that his performance was not good enough and he was going to get fired (not a chance - he was the highest performing industrial hygienist his company had and was always the first choice of customers to deal with). His outlook on the world became very bleak and I can't tell you how many times I traveled to Montana to whisk him away from his handy dandy rifle. It's a recurring thing with manic depressives - they get on their meds and start feeling somewhat normal and feel that the time has come that they don't need the meds anymore. Eventually, there came a time when there was no one around to get him back on them and he took his life.

The common thing here is chemical imbalances in the brain. Drugs can bring things back in to balance or alleviate some of the problematic symptoms. It's easy to spew crap, but it's a lot more difficult to live a life in the shoes of those who really need those drugs to see the world and behave in it in a "normal" fashion.

[Eiger]

Hehe, AoA. We aren't ever going to agree. We see the world completely differently and it's clear that you aren't capable of understanding my perspective. Your filters are just too strong. So never mind.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hehe, AoA. We aren't ever going to agree. We see the world completely differently and it's clear that you aren't capable of understanding my perspective. Your filters are just too strong. So never mind.

I suppose I can say I have filters. Think of it as a water filter - which sifts out the heavy mineral content. Sifting is necessary to get to the pure content of a thing. The key is the nature of filters. Filters are made of a certain material and are rendered active by a certain filtration "process". In the case of the off-topic forums, it is by means of reasoned argumentation.

I would say however that you have no filters. You blatant disagreement with me was not given the flow of a conversation to ascertain the correct position. So, there is a wall between us that remains erect at your discretion. I'm afraid I'm not as cynical as you are when it comes to arriving at solutions, as indicated by my openness to conversation and debate. If you wish to stand behind your conviction that "we will never agree", it's your choice - but it won't be the result of any mode of reasoning.

[Eiger]

I would say however that you have no filters. You blatant disagreement with me was not given the flow of a conversation to ascertain the correct position. So, there is a wall between us that remains erect at your discretion. I'm afraid I'm not as cynical as you are when it comes to arriving at solutions, as indicated by my openness to conversation and debate. If you wish to stand behind your conviction that "we will never agree", it's your choice - but it won't be the result of any mode of reasoning.
No. I explained my position merely as a point of information to you. I'm quite comfortable with it, thanks much, and have been for a long time. I'm not interested in a debate with you. You've rejected my beliefs as I've rejected yours. Neither is willing to consider the other in a neutral fashion. And yes - you're open to conversation and debate, but you're interested in bulldogging for the purpose of winning an argument and insist on using your playing field alone. I don't like your playing field - it's too muddy for me. So I'll hang out on my own turf. Thanks anyway.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You've rejected my beliefs as I've rejected yours. Neither is willing to consider the other in a neutral fashion.


You'd do well to speak for yourself alone. There was nothing "neutral" about my criticism of your position. Natrally, I rejected your perspective as fraudulant if you would consider them based on reason, make no mistake about it. You're a sceptic, and therefore cannot hope to discuss anything outside mere empirical realities, which clearly point to the laws beyond them that give their forms.


And yes - you're open to conversation and debate, but you're interested in bulldogging for the purpose of winning an argument and insist on using your playing field alone.


The only "bulldogging" going on here is your posts, which counter my reasoned arguments with personal attacks. Approach me with respect, or don't approach at all.


I don't like your playing field - it's too muddy for me. So I'll hang out on my own turf. Thanks anyway.

Yea, looks like you're out of your league. Best to stick to simpler content.

[Eiger]

Yup, that's exactly what I mean. You want me to use your reason or "playing field" (yes, I know it's not "your" reason, but the anachronistic reason of other philosophers, so you need not point that out, hehe). I like mine better.

As for respect, that needs to be earned and a friendly manner goes a long way towards that. Personal attacks? You're more a master of that than I.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yup, that's exactly what I mean. You want me to use your reason or "playing field" (yes, I know it's not "your" reason, but the anachronistic reason of other philosophers, so you need not point that out, hehe). I like mine better.


"Anachronistic reason" and "I like mine better" just about sum up everything. You have preferences. A thinker's task is to discover before asserting. As for personal attacks, I've reponded kindly to you more time that I can count. After that, you usually post an argument of some sort, and when I counter that by 1 or more exchanges, you turn to my tone, or my "narrow mindedness". The only strong toned rebuttals come after foolish and inconsistent claims like you're doing now, so don't waste my time with that please.

[Eiger]

"Anachronistic reason" and "I like mine better" just about sum up everything. You have preferences. A thinker's task is to discover before asserting. As for personal attacks, I've reponded kindly to you more time that I can count. After that, you usually post an argument of some sort, and when I counter that by 1 or more exchanges, you turn to my tone, or my "narrow mindedness". The only strong toned rebuttals come after foolish and inconsistent claims like you're doing now, so don't waste my time with that please.
As you like.

[Havard]

That's a real nice point of view. I applaud your sensitivity. The bottom line is that those good old chemical imbalances really screw up a person's emotional makeup, their view of the world, and the choices they make. It's not an issue of responsibility or blame - it's one of do they work or not, do they improve people's lives and help them make better choices? And the answer is yes.

Just yesterday I was up in Vancouver taking my son to a child psychiatrist to discuss the impacts of his new medication. He is mildly autistic and has some problems controlling his anger. He's a wonderful kid - the kindest and most generous child (or person for that matter) I've ever known. However, his condition leads him to get very single-minded and overemotional and then angry at times. This new medication helps him control his anger and make better decisions.

I had a very good friend in college - an overachiever by any standard. He took graduate bio and chem courses while a sophomore, he took up photography and was showing in prestigious gallery six months later - he excelled at everything he did and had many friends. He was also manic depressive. Whenever he stopped taking his meds he could no longer sleep more than an hour a night. He got exceptionally depressed and worried that his performance was not good enough and he was going to get fired (not a chance - he was the highest performing industrial hygienist his company had and was always the first choice of customers to deal with). His outlook on the world became very bleak and I can't tell you how many times I traveled to Montana to whisk him away from his handy dandy rifle. It's a recurring thing with manic depressives - they get on their meds and start feeling somewhat normal and feel that the time has come that they don't need the meds anymore. Eventually, there came a time when there was no one around to get him back on them and he took his life.

The common thing here is chemical imbalances in the brain. Drugs can bring things back in to balance or alleviate some of the problematic symptoms. It's easy to spew crap, but it's a lot more difficult to live a life in the shoes of those who really need those drugs to see the world and behave in it in a "normal" fashion.

First, I am sorry if what I said sounded insensitive.

Second, the important part of what I said is "what matters is what decisions people make with the choices they have." When chemical imbalances get out of hand and cause destructiveness, the afflicted may have more courage than the bravest hero for their efforts battling their affliction... we only see the outcomes. I don't judge people on outcomes, I don't know what's in a man's heart. Further, what you are arguing gives no credit to anyone for the good they do... so, in my view, how can you take offense at my point?

Third, I do believe that the whole societal/criminal aspect needs to be addressed stringently, case-by-case, by professionals. People get away with murder because of loose definitions of criminal insanity.

Finally, I wasn't just shooting off an opinion, I have more experience with the area of mental health than I would ever wish on anyone. I'd rather not get personal on these forums with strangers, but I will tell you that I have grown up with it my entire life and being a Christian I have had many difficult times wrestling with this before I came to where I am.

[Eiger]

First, I am sorry if what I said sounded insensitive.

Second, the important part of what I said is "what matters is what decisions people make with the choices they have." When chemical imbalances get out of hand and cause destructiveness, the afflicted may have more courage than the bravest hero for their efforts battling their affliction... we only see the outcomes. I don't judge people on outcomes, I don't know what's in a man's heart. Further, what you are arguing gives no credit to anyone for the good they do... so, in my view, how can you take offense at my point?

Third, I do believe that the whole societal/criminal aspect needs to be addressed stringently, case-by-case, by professionals. People get away with murder because of loose definitions of criminal insanity.

Finally, I wasn't just shooting off an opinion, I have more experience with the area of mental health than I would ever wish on anyone. I'd rather not get personal on these forums with strangers, but I will tell you that I have grown up with it my entire life and being a Christian I have had many difficult times wrestling with this before I came to where I am.
Actually, I said that emotion is chemically based and that drugs can be used to alter those. You took my remarks and added in comments on societal fault and blame and that people are responsible for their own behavior regardless of their mental health problems. I found your comments to be quite insensitive and responded with some examples, summarizing that drugs can bring people's emotions back in balance.

I didn't say that people aren't responsible for their own behavior - I said that chemical imbalances alter their behavior. And that drugs can help them. I don't take offense so much at your general point on responsibility, but at your cavalier attitude and lumping all people in together - healthy and unhealthy. There is a difference there.

The point really is that emotions are chemical in nature. Just because they are chemical based doesn't mean that society can't punish people for bad behavior - and people are responsible for their behavior - typically. If they are mentally ill or have other mental based issues, our society recognizes that they aren't necessarily responsible for the all of their behavior - but that's different than a typical healthy person not being responsible for their behavior - just because emotions are based chemicals in the brain. That's too much of a leap for any reasonable person I'd think.

As for people getting away with murder on an insanity defense - do you have any idea how difficult it is to plead insanity and "get away with it"? Insanity defenses are subject to seriously strict criteria - which is why they are very rarely used. The national media just tends to highlight a few, but they aren't common at all.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger, emotions are not chemically based. They are thought based. Yet, chemicals in the body can influence thought by making the mind aware of the bodily environs. The dispositions of the body directly produce sensations, which garners a thought or concept of feeling a certain manner. A body that is physically drained or tired will, in most cases, elicit the thought or notion of being drowsy, tired, or simply burned out.

I feel burned out quite often, after almost every day, but my emotions can vary depending on my train of thought, which is influenced by the goings-on, and ultimately by my general outlook. This outlook concept is key, as it will filter the affects of the body. I have a text on this kind of dynamic, and one notable example is how masochists will glean positive emotional fervour from pain, where most others would emote a negative reaction. If emotions are chemical in nature, you assent to chemical determinism, which I doubt you would hold to.

As far as "mood altering drugs" go, this can affect emotions, but it is through the intellect first before it directly affects an emotion. Namely, alcohol for instance will act on the body, but produces different "drunks" in different situations. It basically enhanses the expression of the train of thought of a person, which is revealed in action.

In terms of perscription drugs, which my own handicapped brother takes (4 servings a day), they too affect the body, which in turn makes impressions of the mind, giving birth to emotion through that filter. Now in simpler minds, this transferrence of bodily states to emotion would prove more direct, with less reflection. However, being aware of our bodily states and having understanding in them alters our emotional states. THis is again clearly demonstrated in a child vs a grown adult. Children will cry and sob, or giggle by alterations of the environs, while grown adults (I would hope :uhhuh: ) are much less affected emotionally because of the reasoning and understanding they have of their environs. In short, chemicals influence emotion certainly, but they are not "chemically based".

[Havard]

Eiger:

If you believe what you are saying, then could you explain why anyone should ever be proud of themselves or others, or why they should be upset with themselves or others?

If I am wrong about the murder defenses, that is swell, but society's standards are messed up nonetheless. All of a sudden, nothing is anyone's fault anymore. In fact, the damn Cortislim commercials say just that about weight loss. Seriously, though, I know plenty of doctors and many of them have commented to me that people are now overmedicated... for anxiety, depression, and ADHD in particular. It is a very dangerous trend. One of my friends was prescribed an anti-depressant and he almost killed himself because of it. Another did kill herself, and her parents testified before Congress about it. The friend that survived is now off drugs, and his new doctor says he never should have been given any for such a benign case of depression.

I realize that people have mental health problems that require medical treatment. But I am upset about the trend in our society of allocating responsibility. Just today I heard on the radio that George Sauros advocates "reconciliation mediation" between killers and the families of their victims. The insanity defense may be rare now, but I don't like where we're headed, things are changing.

[Eiger]

Eiger:

If you believe what you are saying, then could you explain why anyone should ever be proud of themselves or others, or why they should be upset with themselves or others?

If I am wrong about the murder defenses, that is swell, but society's standards are messed up nonetheless. All of a sudden, nothing is anyone's fault anymore. In fact, the damn Cortislim commercials say just that about weight loss. Seriously, though, I know plenty of doctors and many of them have commented to me that people are now overmedicated... for anxiety, depression, and ADHD in particular. It is a very dangerous trend. One of my friends was prescribed an anti-depressant and he almost killed himself because of it. Another did kill herself, and her parents testified before Congress about it. The friend that survived is now off drugs, and his new doctor says he never should have been given any for such a benign case of depression.

I realize that people have mental health problems that require medical treatment. But I am upset about the trend in our society of allocating responsibility. Just today I heard on the radio that George Sauros advocates "reconciliation mediation" between killers and the families of their victims. The insanity defense may be rare now, but I don't like where we're headed, things are changing.
I don't understand. Why do you think that people shouldn't be able to be proud of themselves, etc. ?

As far as the nothing's anyone's fault anymore - that's old. That's been going on for the past 30+ years. I haven't really noticed it changing much - just more of the same. It's not much of a trend, but a reality. Our culture does not encourage responsibility. It encourages the easy way out and easy money. Everything is convenience based. People want to get rich quick and don't want to work for it. Everyone wants to be rich. Bankruptcy is easier than ever and the stigma is mostly gone - no shame left in that, for example.

The main thing here is that people are going to be that way, but that doesn't mean you've gotta be part of it. Live your life responsibly and hang out with others who do the same. When someone sues you for some bs, counter-sue. If it's not bs - pay up. You can't legislate against sloth, envy, etc - at least in a free country. So you might as well worry about the things you can effect and the examples you can set.

Ya, overmedication's a problem. There have been many cases where teachers ask that unruly kids be given ritalin - when it's really just a discipline problem rather than a health issue. Happens all the time. And that's a major question we were asking the doctor on Monday. That's what people have to do is ask questions and stand up for themselves. Doctors are just people and they act on the info they're given. If no one stands up for the kid, they could well be over medicated. But it usually only happens because parents aren't asking the right questions and standing up to the school. And it's probably that kind of parental flexbone that results in the kid's poor behavior in the first place (talking about healthy kids here).

[Eiger]

Eiger, emotions are not chemically based. They are thought based. Yet, chemicals in the body can influence thought by making the mind aware of the bodily environs. The dispositions of the body directly produce sensations, which garners a thought or concept of feeling a certain manner. A body that is physically drained or tired will, in most cases, elicit the thought or notion of being drowsy, tired, or simply burned out.

Close. Emotions are the result of chemicals released by a thought based trigger. They are reactions. Different parts of the brain and different chemicals are associated with emotions. You can remove the part of the brain associated with a specific emotion and you'll lose that emotion. That's the brief version - there's plenty of research on this, but I have a meeting in a few minutes...

Anyway - think what happens when you experience a "flood of emotion" - that's a bunch of chems being released...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Close. Emotions are the result of chemicals released by a thought based trigger. They are reactions. Different parts of the brain and different chemicals are associated with emotions. You can remove the part of the brain associated with a specific emotion and you'll lose that emotion. That's the brief version - there's plenty of research on this, but I have a meeting in a few minutes...

Anyway - think what happens when you experience a "flood of emotion" - that's a bunch of chems being released...

Thought based triggers... you may be right. I'll look into it more. Can you provide me with any texts?

[Eiger]

Thought based triggers... you may be right. I'll look into it more. Can you provide me with any texts?
I'll look. I was checking earlier and found some stuff that was close, but not close enough to provide links for. When I plug in thought - I keep getting hits on the philosophy of biology and such, hehe. There does seem to be some good work on this at the Universities of Michigan and Wisconsin. I'll just need to find the time to check them out further.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I thought about it a little more, I'd say it works both ways. The body informs the intellect, and vice versa. Good material for discussion on the mind-body issue.

[Eiger]

Here's a couple links. The first one seems a little loosey goosey at first and isn't directly supported, but she's going in the direction that a lot of the researchers seem to be heading.

http://www.wisdombase.org/brainchem.html

The second one is a ScienceWeek archive. See #5 on the neurobiology of emotions and feelings. Kinda sparse but we're getting there -

http://scienceweek.com/2001/sw011221.htm

Here's a little theory on the chemistry of love - chems that lead to racing pulses and sweaty palms. It also mentions a little on thoughts as triggers. It's not convincing from an evidenciary perspective, but it shows the thinking going on.

http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/montage/Montage_96-01/lovedrug.html

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Thx Eiger, I will look at those tommorow.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

As long as we can agree that love is a choice, not merely a reaction (as in a feeling of love), then we're square.

[Eiger]

Hehe - can't deny that one.