Comment on religion. [Archive] - Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums

AgeOfAbnegation

10-02-2005, 03:17 PM

Kant bases his philosophy around the fact that there is an incorporeal part of the mind but offers no proof of this. Maybe his critiques help you right a nice concise argument but that doesnt change the fact that its based on an unsound foundation.

Kant doesn't make use of argument based on the corporeal/incorporeal. His arguments are very cautious to move outside the realm of concepts and schema we can discover by reason. He doesn't even make reference to the "outside world", for the sake of consistency.

Just because you are sure in your "heart" doesnt make it any more real. People do misguided things all the time because they are sure about them.

Reference to needs of the heart is another point of departure we can work with after we're certain we've gone as far as we could with reason. You're problem is that you've locked out emotions as a criteria for discerning beliefs. You need to take the whole of the person into consideration. If you're only willing to use logic as method at the expense of others, you'll necessarily end up in scepticism or dogmatism. Ironically, if you use reason properly like I've been trying to tell you, it would naturally lead you to these other methods as well.

Just chalking up all the good things people have been sure about too god, and all the bad things to satan, doesnt really cut it. The way the subconscious and and conscious interact can be very odd, i admit. But im not willing to just say there is an incorporal part of the mind, just because we dont completely understand the brain.

In regards the incorporeal, the mind would have to be incorporeal. Matter cannot "think". With matter, all you have is action/reaction, not sentience. No amount of chemical reactions or composition can create "life".

Sage the Mage

11-02-2005, 04:31 AM

In regards the incorporeal, the mind would have to be incorporeal. Matter cannot "think". With matter, all you have is action/reaction, not sentience. No amount of chemical reactions or composition can create "life".

Remember that whole thing about how you can't prove this and I can't disprove this thing? It applies here.

HR_Hellfire

11-02-2005, 06:05 AM

Cloud_Walker

11-02-2005, 07:19 AM

Reason can bring you to the end of its limits. At that juncture, it must make room for faith in dealing with things that we can't analyze perfectly.

Yes of course. You originally said that reason presents objects for belief in using faith, yet how did these objects come from reason if they need faith for these concepts to exist?

Also, if something is outside the limits of reason, it cannot be analyzed at all.

AgeOfAbnegation

11-02-2005, 07:44 AM

Remember that whole thing about how you can't prove this and I can't disprove this thing? It applies here.

No, it really doesn't apply. That's called skepticism. You can't prove or disprove those things that cannot be judged under the security of the scientific method. This matter however, is a "no brainer".

AgeOfAbnegation

11-02-2005, 07:44 AM

Until whatever deity in charge comes to my house, knocks on my door and promptly apologises for all the BS in the world and this sick, twisted joke called reality I'll put my faith into my friends, family, and heavy drinking.

~HR_HELLFIRE

That's lame, really. It's your own responsibility to stand up and make an effort to learn the truth on your own. Perhaps heavy drinking impedes this.

AgeOfAbnegation

11-02-2005, 07:49 AM

Yes of course. You originally said that reason presents objects for belief in using faith, yet how did these objects come from reason if they need faith for these concepts to exist?

Faith is not blind, as I mentioned earlier. What's at stake is the method of coming to realize the object(s), not its actual existence. That's why I tell people like Xaf that he dismisses the notion of desire all too soon. While we may not prove God (but can demonstrate it), we still yearn for freedom and transcendence, which in itself is another aspect of the journey. At this stage, one can start discussing faith. Problem here is, everyone things faith means "blind faith", which has no relevance whatsoever.

Also, if something is outside the limits of reason, it cannot be analyzed at all.

Not by an empirical method, no. Do you like to read? Try Kan't metaphysics of morals text.

Xaf

11-02-2005, 11:26 PM

Kant doesn't make use of argument based on the corporeal/incorporeal. His arguments are very cautious to move outside the realm of concepts and schema we can discover by reason. He doesn't even make reference to the "outside world", for the sake of consistency.

Reference to needs of the heart is another point of departure we can work with after we're certain we've gone as far as we could with reason. You're problem is that you've locked out emotions as a criteria for discerning beliefs. You need to take the whole of the person into consideration. If you're only willing to use logic as method at the expense of others, you'll necessarily end up in scepticism or dogmatism. Ironically, if you use reason properly like I've been trying to tell you, it would naturally lead you to these other methods as well.

In regards the incorporeal, the mind would have to be incorporeal. Matter cannot "think". With matter, all you have is action/reaction, not sentience. No amount of chemical reactions or composition can create "life".

Kant definitely discusses and alludes to the idea that there is an incorporal part of the mind a fair amount.

As for creating life, we havent done it yet, but it took billions of years for life to appear the first time. Why would you think we could figure it out in a relative blink of an eye? Who knows what could be discovered in the future? We can already clone life and are discovering and studying the building blocks that make up our cells. So one day the idea that life had to be created by the incorporal could be just as sillly as the idea that apollo pulls the sun across the sky in a chariot. But obviously we cant create life yet, so that is the one thing religion can hide behind.

But thought, we can discuss that. Why do you believe thought has to be incorporeal? Why cant matter think? An animal can think. Monkeys can count and use sign language, learn fromt their mistakes, and mourne their dead. What seperates us from them, because i know you believe there is a fundamental difference. Too me thought is just impulses and instinct. The brain is amzing but no more so than a sun or a black hole.

AgeOfAbnegation

11-02-2005, 11:43 PM

Kant definitely discusses and alludes to the idea that there is an incorporal part of the mind a fair amount.

Did you start to read Kant? When Kant makes a point of something, he never "alludes" to it. Every point he wants to make is argued thoroughly from the beginning, and is shown how it fits into the framework of his arguments. He's very clear - about everything. It stands to reason that even by reading his arguments however, the mind would have to be incorporeal. Other than that, you'd have to show me the exact text.

As for creating life, we havent done it yet, but it took billions of years for life to appear the first time.

I didn't know life was something that was able to be created by life. A thing can be created only by something that is above it. Since human beings are living, we can only transmit life, not create it, since that's what we're composed of (or is what we are). Life can never be fabricated, only transmitted. Even so, it would not be transmitted without the arbitration of the creator and sustainer of life. Also, life didn't just "appear".

Why would you think we could figure it out in a relative blink of an eye? Who knows what could be discovered in the future? We can already clone life and are discovering and studying the building blocks that make up our cells. So one day the idea that life had to be created by the incorporal could be just as sillly as the idea that apollo pulls the sun across the sky in a chariot. But obviously we cant create life yet, so that is the one thing religion can hide behind.

Cloning is still transmission. It's another way of using the building blocks to allow for the possiblilty of life.

But thought, we can discuss that. Why do you believe thought has to be incorporeal? Why cant matter think? An animal can think.

Animals still have a share in the incorporeal. Sentience demands the incorporeal. If thought were a matter of physical transmission, it would be determined by chemical composition and reaction. Thought couldn't possibly be anything more than an incorporeal action, given data by sensibles. There is zero possibility for any other option.

Sage the Mage

12-02-2005, 12:12 AM

If thought were a matter of physical transmission, it would be determined by chemical composition and reaction. Thought couldn't possibly be anything more than an incorporeal action, given data by sensibles. There is zero possibility for any other option.

Now I seem to recall that there are indeed signs when thoughts happen in the brain, but other than that I know nothing on the matter. We need a science guy here :)

Cloud_Walker

12-02-2005, 01:07 AM

Faith is not blind, as I mentioned earlier.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that. Where did you say that, and did you back it up?

What's at stake is the method of coming to realize the object(s), not its actual existence. That's why I tell people like Xaf that he dismisses the notion of desire all too soon. While we may not prove God (but can demonstrate it), we still yearn for freedom and transcendence, which in itself is another aspect of the journey. At this stage, one can start discussing faith. Problem here is, everyone things faith means "blind faith", which has no relevance whatsoever.

Do you dare separate the realisation of an object with its actual existence? Please tell me what the difference is between "knowing" (realising) an object in your head and "knowing" it exists apart from you.

I told you, faith is belief in something without reason or evidence. Without reason means there's no reason to hold the idea of whatever it is you believe in in your head, i.e., it is not the product of any rational method. It can only be imagination. Believing the idea to hold some truth is faith.

Not by an empirical method, no. Do you like to read? Try Kan't metaphysics of morals text.

Empiricism deals with senses. The only thing you can do with the empirical method is catalogue what you have experienced. Analyzation involves reason.

EDIT: After reading my post over, I noticed that one could easily find my tone offensive. Know that I never try to offend or talk down to anyone. I only state arguments.

AgeOfAbnegation

12-02-2005, 02:22 AM

I'm sorry, I must have missed that. Where did you say that, and did you back it up?

Reread thread in its entirety - I'm sure I made mention of it. Faith is not blind in that an object is selected prior to the act of faith. Though I suppose the actual per se act of faith would be like jumping off a cliff, but the cliff is chosen first :).

Do you dare separate the realisation of an object with its actual existence?

A distinction can be made between objects known empirically, and those known as transcendental objects. We can know an object is empirically by its affect on our senses. Transcendental objects are not subject to the senses, but to objects of desire, so we can know them by that much. Since the knowledge cannot be perfect, we can go as far as we can by realizing what it is not. Kant however was careful not to assert an outside world for the sake of his argument. Thus, we can't prove an outside world, but only work from concepts. We can be sure however in the certainty of objects by the certainty of reason. If I'm not totally clear plz explain further.

I told you, faith is belief in something without reason or evidence. Without reason means there's no reason to hold the idea of whatever it is you believe in in your head, i.e., it is not the product of any rational method. It can only be imagination. Believing the idea to hold some truth is faith.

I answered this with first paragraph.

Empiricism deals with senses. The only thing you can do with the empirical method is catalogue what you have experienced. Analyzation involves reason.

No problems there.

EDIT: After reading my post over, I noticed that one could easily find my tone offensive. Know that I never try to offend or talk down to anyone. I only state arguments.

No worries - people accuse me of the same thing all the time lol. You're ok in my book. ^^

Oberon

12-02-2005, 03:12 AM

Faith is not blind in that an object is selected prior to the act of faith. Though I suppose the actual per se act of faith would be like jumping off a cliff, but the cliff is chosen first.

Most people, especially those with deep religious convictions based on faith, follow the same religion they were brought up with (some may say indoctrinated with) by their parents. They did not chose a cliff, they were born on it.

Cloud_Walker

12-02-2005, 03:14 AM

A distinction can be made between objects known empirically, and those known as transcendental objects. We can know an object is empirically by its affect on our senses. Transcendental objects are not subject to the senses, but to objects of desire, so we can know them by that much. Since the knowledge cannot be perfect, we can go as far as we can by realizing what it is not. Kant however was careful not to assert an outside world for the sake of his argument. Thus, we can't prove an outside world, but only work from concepts. We can be sure however in the certainty of objects by the certainty of reason. If I'm not totally clear plz explain further.

I discovered that we agree, but not clearly. In my previous post I pointed out that objects of faith come from the imagination, and believing in their truth is what constitutes faith. You said that objects of faith are postulated by reason, and faith takes it from there. This is basically the same thing.

Imagination is just making new combinations of past experiences and trains of thought. So imagination is part reason. However, I think what isn't clear is a technicality: that objects of faith cannot be the products of rational discourse itself, or the conclusion to an argument for their existence. If they were, belief in their truth would be a rational, debateable manner. But then these objects wouldn't be objects of faith, but of reason.

Put another way, one can reason for God's existence (IMHO incorrectly), but one can also believe in God without reason, that is, have faith in God.

So yes, reason can present options for objects of faith, but indirectly, just as experience can; both through imagination.

EDIT: Good point, Oberon. Some skip the imagination (or random choosing) part altogether, or just use that of someone else.

AgeOfAbnegation

12-02-2005, 04:42 AM

Most people, especially those with deep religious convictions based on faith, follow the same religion they were brought up with (some may say indoctrinated with) by their parents. They did not chose a cliff, they were born on it.

Yep, in alot of cases this is true.

AgeOfAbnegation

12-02-2005, 04:44 AM

CW, I'll get to your point later, Kant talks about the imagination etc.

AgeOfAbnegation

13-02-2005, 10:36 AM

Imagination is just making new combinations of past experiences and trains of thought. So imagination is part reason. However, I think what isn't clear is a technicality: that objects of faith cannot be the products of rational discourse itself, or the conclusion to an argument for their existence. If they were, belief in their truth would be a rational, debateable manner. But then these objects wouldn't be objects of faith, but of reason.

Yes, you are correct in that. Reason can uncover the object of faith (authentically), but you are right in saying that the object of faith cannot just start from reasoned argument - there must be an experiential element. I'll say that this experience would be the inherent desire of all human beings for fulfillment, which urges reason onward (indeed reason discovers this in its own dialogue). Reason would thus uncover what desire realizes in its own operation.

Cloud_Walker

14-02-2005, 05:00 AM

Yes, you are correct in that. Reason can uncover the object of faith (authentically), but you are right in saying that the object of faith cannot just start from reasoned argument - there must be an experiential element. I'll say that this experience would be the inherent desire of all human beings for fulfillment, which urges reason onward (indeed reason discovers this in its own dialogue). Reason would thus uncover what desire realizes in its own operation.

I see what you're saying, I think.

Reason could be used to interpret a desire for fulfillment? Here, the premise would be a divine being, and the conclusion would be the desire. At this point, the existence of the divine being is a matter of faith (not reason, because its existence is assumed/unfounded) unless it is justified. The premise can be called into question, of course.

Or maybe the desire for fulfillment is what makes humans reason?

Anyways, I'm not sure how what you said relates to my paragraph on imagination. For an object of faith to come from reason, it would have to be a conclusion to an argument. Eg., X and X and X, therefore, God exists. But this makes God a rational conclusion; there is no need to have faith in God because you can prove his existence. For an object of faith to come from experience, there would have to empirical evidence for its existence. Reason would then take over from there to draw a conclusion (even an incorrect conclusion) from this experience or evidence, making this object, again, a product of reason. Therefore, faith in its existence isn't necessary. But anything divine or supernatural by definition is outside experience, so an object of faith cannot come from here anyway. So, where can an object of faith come from? It comes from any random combination of thoughts, images, and memories in ones mind. Where do the thoughts/images/memories in our heads come from? Well, some are there from experience, some are there from past rational conclusions. But this proposed object of faith is something entirely new. Belief in its existence after its creation in the mind requires faith. Belief in its existence after rational justification does not require faith, it merely requires a rational argument. The point: objects of faith may be indirectly a product of reason (among other things), but they themselves are not reasonable.

Let's see if I can come up with an analogy. I have a garden. In my garden I grow apples, oranges, grapes, bananas, and other kinds of fruit (this must be a very large garden). Once grown, I take some of each of these fruits and put them in a blender and make a smoothie. Is this smoothie a product of my gardening? No. Here, the smoothie is the object of faith, the garden is reason and experience, the fruits are products of the garden (past experiences or rational conclusions), and the blender is the imagination. Note that the smoothie wasn't grown, it has no root (premises). It is not a product of reason, but of the imagination.

But I think we're clear on all of that. I just wanted to elaborate on the imagination and objects of faith so that you can understand it more clearly, because, like I said, I'm not sure how what you posted (at least the last two sentences) relates to them.

Sage the Mage

14-02-2005, 05:47 AM

Let's see if I can come up with an analogy. I have a garden. In my garden I grow apples, oranges, grapes, bananas, and other kinds of fruit (this must be a very large garden). Once grown, I take some of each of these fruits and put them in a blender and make a smoothie. Is this smoothie a product of my gardening? No. Here, the smoothie is the object of faith, the garden is reason and experience, the fruits are products of the garden (past experiences or rational conclusions), and the blender is the imagination. Note that the smoothie wasn't grown, it has no root (premises). It is not a product of reason, but of the imagination.

That is still reason:
The smoothie tastes/looks like it was made from the fruits.
Recently, those fruits were taken from the garden
So its most likely that the fruits were used to make the smoothie.
Obviously a little more logic is necessary but I assume you get the idea.

The faith comes in if you believe it with absolute certainty:
Since the fruits were most likely to make the smoothie, I believe the smoothie was made from the fruits.

AgeOfAbnegation

14-02-2005, 06:39 AM

Reason could be used to interpret a desire for fulfillment? Here, the premise would be a divine being, and the conclusion would be the desire.

The other way around - the premise would be the desire, then reason works towards a conclusion, that the divine being is an appropriate object for belief.

Or maybe the desire for fulfillment is what makes humans reason?

Indeed, while reason is its own power, desire moves it forward.

Anyways, I'm not sure how what you said relates to my paragraph on imagination.

I'm not sure how imagination factored into it, other than the notion you put forth as imagination being connected with experience, which I agreed with.

For an object of faith to come from reason, it would have to be a conclusion to an argument. Eg., X and X and X, therefore, God exists. But this makes God a rational conclusion; there is no need to have faith in God because you can prove his existence. For an object of faith to come from experience, there would have to empirical evidence for its existence. Reason would then take over from there to draw a conclusion (even an incorrect conclusion) from this experience or evidence, making this object, again, a product of reason. Therefore, faith in its existence isn't necessary.

God cannot be proven by reason, but may be demonstrated. We can't make use of an if X and Y then Z formula or the like to make it work, since God is transcendental to our faculties. We can, however, forge a pathway by seeing what is not, to discover the only possibilites for what is.

But anything divine or supernatural by definition is outside experience, so an object of faith cannot come from here anyway. So, where can an object of faith come from? It comes from any random combination of thoughts, images, and memories in ones mind. Where do the thoughts/images/memories in our heads come from? Well, some are there from experience, some are there from past rational conclusions. But this proposed object of faith is something entirely new. Belief in its existence after its creation in the mind requires faith. Belief in its existence after rational justification does not require faith, it merely requires a rational argument. The point: objects of faith may be indirectly a product of reason (among other things), but they themselves are not reasonable.

This is where Kant would come in handy. You're dealing with all these aspects of empiricism, but with no reference to a shcematism, or a methodology for uncovering their inherent framework, which will lead you down a sure path. It is very reasonable, but requires some elbow-grease as it were ^^. Without going further, I'd say pick up a copy of Kant's critique of pure reason if you have not already done so, and read through his transcendental deduction. THere, and with his dialectic afterwards, you'll find a schematism for the effects of empirical objects on the senses, and how they are "processed" as it were. THis is the key to your inquiry here.

Cloud_Walker

14-02-2005, 09:50 AM

That is still reason:
The smoothie tastes/looks like it was made from the fruits.
Recently, those fruits were taken from the garden
So its most likely that the fruits were used to make the smoothie.
Obviously a little more logic is necessary but I assume you get the idea.

The faith comes in if you believe it with absolute certainty:
Since the fruits were most likely to make the smoothie, I believe the smoothie was made from the fruits.

It wasn't a perfect analogy :(

I like your definition of faith, though (absolute certainty). I'll have to think on that awhile.

God cannot be proven by reason, but may be demonstrated.

I'm not sure what the difference is.

We can, however, forge a pathway by seeing what is not, to discover the only possibilites for what is.

I am also unsure of the meaning of this statement, but it interests me. Please clarify it.

This is where Kant would come in handy. You're dealing with all these aspects of empiricism, but with no reference to a shcematism, or a methodology for uncovering their inherent framework, which will lead you down a sure path. It is very reasonable, but requires some elbow-grease as it were ^^. Without going further, I'd say pick up a copy of Kant's critique of pure reason if you have not already done so, and read through his transcendental deduction. THere, and with his dialectic afterwards, you'll find a schematism for the effects of empirical objects on the senses, and how they are "processed" as it were. THis is the key to your inquiry here.

I have not read his actual work, but I have studied it in a philosophy class and read about it. Now, Kant is not the authority on philosophical matters, merely an authority. That said, he is my favorite philosopher, and I agree with much of what he says.

Kant says that we receive empirical data and process it with a priori faculties. On sensibility and understanding:

"through the former objects are given to us; through the latter they are thought."

"The order and regularity in objects, which we entitle nature, we ourselves introduce. The understanding is itself the lawgiver of nature."

Then he goes on to categorize these methods of thinking.

Going by what he (and I) says, experience isn't anything until thought about using the pre-made structure of our minds. However, I don't see how a desire can be a premise for anything. I have a desire, therefore... what? One might seek a cause to the desire (Why do I have a desire for fulfillment?), but here the desire is the conclusion.

AgeOfAbnegation

15-02-2005, 12:09 AM

Damn, I posted a long winded reply earlier today but there was a server rollback. I'll be much shorter this time (at least for now).

I'm not sure what the difference is.

By proving something, my definition is that the object proved is under our power of the faculties, which is thus mastered by us (we are not the master of God, but vice versa). By demonstration, which ties in with your next question, following the methodology that reason offers can give you options for belief, by working from what we have, and going as far as we can until we reach our limits. At that point, we have demonstrated a path that leads us to the possibility for belief.

I am also unsure of the meaning of this statement, but it interests me. Please clarify it.

As above. Process of elimination via reason pretty much.

I have not read his actual work, but I have studied it in a philosophy class and read about it. Now, Kant is not the authority on philosophical matters, merely an authority. That said, he is my favorite philosopher, and I agree with much of what he says.

Kant says that we receive empirical data and process it with a priori faculties. On sensibility and understanding:

"through the former objects are given to us; through the latter they are thought."

"The order and regularity in objects, which we entitle nature, we ourselves introduce. The understanding is itself the lawgiver of nature."

Then he goes on to categorize these methods of thinking.

Going by what he (and I) says, experience isn't anything until thought about using the pre-made structure of our minds. However, I don't see how a desire can be a premise for anything. I have a desire, therefore... what? One might seek a cause to the desire (Why do I have a desire for fulfillment?), but here the desire is the conclusion.

Desire is not a premise in that it gives intelligibility fora premise, but is a premise in that it underpins the desire of reason to move forward in inquiry.

Cloud_Walker

15-02-2005, 06:07 AM

By proving something, my definition is that the object proved is under our power of the faculties, which is thus mastered by us (we are not the master of God, but vice versa).

Watch yourself. You presupposed God, there.

By demonstration, which ties in with your next question, following the methodology that reason offers can give you options for belief, by working from what we have, and going as far as we can until we reach our limits. At that point, we have demonstrated a path that leads us to the possibility for belief.

At the end of the path, anything that is not on the path is possible. Why pick anything over anything else?

Desire is not a premise in that it gives intelligibility fora premise, but is a premise in that it underpins the desire of reason to move forward in inquiry.

That was much clearer, thank you.

After some thinking, I have found that our ideas on faith and where proposed objects of faith come from are not contradictory. You said they come from reason. I say they come from imagination. I said imagination is part past experience and part past reasoning. Since there is no empirical data for the objects of faith we are discussing, these objects must come from the "past reasoning" part of imagination. So, yes, they come from reason. I qualify that, however, by saying "indirectly."

Xaf

16-02-2005, 03:00 AM

Did you start to read Kant? When Kant makes a point of something, he never "alludes" to it. Every point he wants to make is argued thoroughly from the beginning, and is shown how it fits into the framework of his arguments. He's very clear - about everything. It stands to reason that even by reading his arguments however, the mind would have to be incorporeal. Other than that, you'd have to show me the exact text.

I have read kants critique of pure reason. As far as i could tell his entire philosophy is based on the fact that there is some part of the mind that is entirely incorporeal while the rest of the body is just a machine it uses to interact with the world we are in. i didnt really understand how he came to this conclusion though besides some fuzzy ideas about the subconscious.

I didn't know life was something that was able to be created by life. A thing can be created only by something that is above it. Since human beings are living, we can only transmit life, not create it, since that's what we're composed of (or is what we are). Life can never be fabricated, only transmitted. Even so, it would not be transmitted without the arbitration of the creator and sustainer of life. Also, life didn't just "appear".

Well obviously i dont know that either as it hasnt been done yet. But what is your reason that it is impossible. Do you have some mathematical proof for this, or some evidence? Can you please back any of that last paragraph up?

Animals still have a share in the incorporeal. Sentience demands the incorporeal. If thought were a matter of physical transmission, it would be determined by chemical composition and reaction. Thought couldn't possibly be anything more than an incorporeal action, given data by sensibles. There is zero possibility for any other option.

Wow im glad the brain is magic and thats the end of that. I hope you realize that you sound like some religious zealot who lost any free thinking ability he had long ago.

AgeOfAbnegation

16-02-2005, 10:35 AM

Watch yourself. You presupposed God, there.

What I did was lay out some attributes that could easily be associated with the primer mover with very little effort. The brackets reperesnted an example.

At the end of the path, anything that is not on the path is possible. Why pick anything over anything else?

Where did you get that idea..?

That was much clearer, thank you.

After some thinking, I have found that our ideas on faith and where proposed objects of faith come from are not contradictory. You said they come from reason. I say they come from imagination. I said imagination is part past experience and part past reasoning. Since there is no empirical data for the objects of faith we are discussing, these objects must come from the "past reasoning" part of imagination. So, yes, they come from reason. I qualify that, however, by saying "indirectly."

Anything that comes from reason would have to come by means of the same method, each time. I don't see a distinction between being direct and indirect. Further, without empirical data to inform the thought process, there could be no reference to any concept - even of the transcendental.

AgeOfAbnegation

16-02-2005, 10:48 AM

I have read kants critique of pure reason. As far as i could tell his entire philosophy is based on the fact that there is some part of the mind that is entirely incorporeal while the rest of the body is just a machine it uses to interact with the world we are in. i didnt really understand how he came to this conclusion though besides some fuzzy ideas about the subconscious.

You must have had a bad day, or at least are tired - you've been relatively well behaved lately up to this point. I'm not sure what kind of treatment you gave the text, but Kant would roll over in his grave at such an exposition of his works. If you can't articualte something, you don't know it. Why air it, if that's the case?

Well obviously i dont know that either as it hasnt been done yet. But what is your reason that it is impossible. Do you have some mathematical proof for this, or some evidence? Can you please back any of that last paragraph up?

This section is representative of your "eternal struggle". You ask for "mathematical" proofs and forumulae for something that is to be treated by means of a completely different methodology. You're locked into one method only that is meant to deal with simple conceptual, empirical notions. Yet, the folly is that you apply this to all other objects of inquiry, without inquiry into the nature in which they are to be approached. I gave you an explanation of how the idea that "life" - the aspect of being - as simply a manipulation of material components is completely absurd. Then you ask me for a mathematical proof. Interactions among any physical manifestation can only render additional forms of physical manifestation. The whole notion of life, being alive, and being in general, is on a higher plane altogether. In this case 1+1 cannot equal 2, with 1 being the physical, and 2 being sentience.

Wow im glad the brain is magic and thats the end of that. I hope you realize that you sound like some religious zealot who lost any free thinking ability he had long ago.

If I lost the ability to think, you have not rightly begun. You need to get off your mathematical basis for looking at reality, and become aware of concepts that demand an alternate methodology to treat their objects correctly. You can take that option, or replay the same song you've been singing since you first logged onto these forums. I hope you consider the former, since the latter is a stumbling block you trip over all to often.

Sage the Mage

16-02-2005, 02:57 PM

You must have had a bad day, or at least are tired - you've been relatively well behaved lately up to this point. I'm not sure what kind of treatment you gave the text, but Kant would roll over in his grave at such an exposition of his works. If you can't articualte something, you don't know it. Why air it, if that's the case?

The smart thing to do would be to show him where he's wrong, wouldn't it? :)

This section is representative of your "eternal struggle". You ask for "mathematical" proofs and forumulae for something that is to be treated by means of a completely different methodology. You're locked into one method only that is meant to deal with simple conceptual, empirical notions. Yet, the folly is that you apply this to all other objects of inquiry, without inquiry into the nature in which they are to be approached. I gave you an explanation of how the idea that "life" - the aspect of being - as simply a manipulation of material components is completely absurd. Then you ask me for a mathematical proof.
Are you still on conciousness? Remember the whole, "We need a science guy" statement I made? You sorta didn't reply past that.

Interactions among any physical manifestation can only render additional forms of physical manifestation. The whole notion of life, being alive, and being in general, is on a higher plane altogether. In this case 1+1 cannot equal 2, with 1 being the physical, and 2 being sentience.
Well if 1+1 != 2 then why should If A, then B work on a higher plane?

Pogo

16-02-2005, 04:22 PM

the ONLY reason to follow any religion is because you have a faith in the existance of a divine being.

This isn't how it plays out in real life. Since religions are so institutional, people are born and raised with them, its impossible to say that those people would worship the same way had they not been indoctrinated from childhood.

A lot of people are just going along with their church because that is what they know, its part of their culture, family, and sense of identity. It's not worth reading to much into.

haughty

16-02-2005, 07:06 PM

A lot of people are just going along with their church because that is what they know, its part of their culture, family, and sense of identity. It's not worth reading to much into.

I have to agree with Pogo. Most people get a sense of belonging and community from thier religious institutions. In fact, that is the main point of religion. An institution running a community can set down mores in accordance with its agenda. These mores then control the actions of its members.

I think the Morman and Catholic practices of having large families provide a good example. Clearly the institution wants to grow in membership, and what better way to grow than to encourage your members to breed excessively? It does not matter how they communicate this agenda, whether it is based on an edict from above, or simple tradition, the result is the same. The institution grows and therefore transfers more power to its leaders.

Of course, this thread has become primarily about faith, not religion.

AgeOfAbnegation

16-02-2005, 07:23 PM

The smart thing to do would be to show him where he's wrong, wouldn't it? :)

I'm really not sure if it would make any difference. That text is an ardorous one to read, and Xaf's explication of it was representative of a skim through, if best. Kant never used the word "incorporeal" once - thats a term used mainly in medieval philosophy. Furthermore, his text discusses the structure of reason (i.e. - the process of thought). So, this idea that he came up with was startling, to put it mildly. Other that that, he's made no attempt at offering some substantiation for his own points.

Are you still on conciousness? Remember the whole, "We need a science guy" statement I made? You sorta didn't reply past that.

Probably because I didn't see its relevance for moving the thread in a progressive direction, and I still don't, frankly.

Well if 1+1 != 2 then why should If A, then B work on a higher plane?

I posted that formula to demonstrate to Xaf the utter futility of applying mathematical principles to something like ontology. That's like trying to mix oil and water - two completely different things.

AgeOfAbnegation

16-02-2005, 07:29 PM

This isn't how it plays out in real life. Since religions are so institutional, people are born and raised with them, its impossible to say that those people would worship the same way had they not been indoctrinated from childhood.

A lot of people are just going along with their church because that is what they know, its part of their culture, family, and sense of identity. It's not worth reading to much into.

I agreed with everything except your last sentance. I wanted to chime in on this notion of cultural determinism. Not everyone slides into this formula of cultural/ideological conditioning. Some discover it through their respective life journeys. Indeed, many people who are going to church these days are those who, through time and experience, have made a concious choice that that is what they wish to do. Many of these people have not had a background in their religion, though others may have, and have opted to return to their practise. It would be an inconsistency to attest to merely a model of cultural conditioning. That would assert that everyone is determined in their beliefs - or disbelief - from day one. I'm sure that you would think life to be more dynamic than that.

Oberon

16-02-2005, 10:27 PM

I gave you an explanation of how the idea that "life" - the aspect of being - as simply a manipulation of material components is completely absurd. Then you ask me for a mathematical proof. Interactions among any physical manifestation can only render additional forms of physical manifestation. The whole notion of life, being alive, and being in general, is on a higher plane altogether. In this case 1+1 cannot equal 2, with 1 being the physical, and 2 being sentience.

I'd have to say I'm a bit skeptical of your reasoning here. Using our technology and the methods of science as best we are capable of, everything it shows us points to life as being manipulation of material components. In fact there's serious debate regarding what is alive and what is not. Is a virus alive? Is a star? I believe sometimes when faced with a belief we find unsettling (i.e. we're just atoms interacting with atoms and nothing of the mysticism and dogma that comfort us are real). People often seek the comfort of ignorance over the hard truth of reality. I say ignorance because even after science clearly explains something, people ask 'is that it?' and refuse to believe there isn't more to it. Long after we know the science of weather people still believe God causes lightning and claim prayer helped their trailor avoid destruction by the tornado. With the recent tsunami some fundamentalist Christians claimed it was God's wrath against non-Christians since most of the victims were Hindu/Muslim - yet we know precisely what caused the tsunami from a scientific standpoint. Why people cannot accept that consciousness doesn't involve some supernatural or mystical influence IMO is a sign that while they accept the products of science (computers, electricity, modern medicine, etc) they refuse to accept its methods. Consciousness resides in the brain and is the result of electro-chemical interactions within the brain and the input (senses) and output (speach, movement) regions connected to it. That doesn't in any way reduce the meaning or value of consciousness however.

AgeOfAbnegation

16-02-2005, 11:57 PM

I'd have to say I'm a bit skeptical of your reasoning here.
Using our technology and the methods of science as best we are capable of, everything it shows us points to life as being manipulation of material components.

A certain positioning of material components is necessary to allow for the possibility of life, but it is not "life" per se.

In fact there's serious debate regarding what is alive and what is not. Is a virus alive? Is a star? I believe sometimes when faced with a belief we find unsettling (i.e. we're just atoms interacting with atoms and nothing of the mysticism and dogma that comfort us are real). People often seek the comfort of ignorance over the hard truth of reality. I say ignorance because even after science clearly explains something, people ask 'is that it?' and refuse to believe there isn't more to it. Long after we know the science of weather people still believe God causes lightning and claim prayer helped their trailor avoid destruction by the tornado. With the recent tsunami some fundamentalist Christians claimed it was God's wrath against non-Christians since most of the victims were Hindu/Muslim - yet we know precisely what caused the tsunami from a scientific standpoint. Why people cannot accept that consciousness doesn't involve some supernatural or mystical influence IMO is a sign that while they accept the products of science (computers, electricity, modern medicine, etc) they refuse to accept its methods.

Belief attribution is irrelevent. Stick to argument at hand plz.

Consciousness resides in the brain and is the result of electro-chemical interactions within the brain and the input (senses) and output (speach, movement) regions connected to it. That doesn't in any way reduce the meaning or value of consciousness however.

Conciousness is a modality of life, but is not equal with life. The modality of being alive need not include conciousness or unconciousness. Biological reductionism is (forgive me) silly. Not only does it not make sense when you look at the collective picture, it also presupposes a metaphysics of nihilism. It presupposes that everything (reality) just "happened". To begin with, material components could not have "got there" without the action of a prime mover. I.E. - nothing happens without a cause. No phisical component can spirng into being from nothing wihtout a greater power or essence to initiate it and sustain it. And all this underpins any reference to a discussion on the nature of life itself. All in all - material components are what they are - material. Something caused it. Material components are limited by their own inherent properties and interact in a causal reality, with fixed boundaries. I would add that, in addition to your belief attribution argument earlier (which really doesn't have any significance to this argument), that people also like to ignore the "hard facts" of reason and metaphysics (most especially), and arbitrarily tell nature what it can and cannot do.

*edit* - don't take my tone the wrong way Ob :p. Just my method of debating.

Oberon

17-02-2005, 12:23 AM

Conciousness is a modality of life, but is not equal with life. The modality of being alive need not include conciousness or unconciousness. Biological reductionism is (forgive me) silly. Not only does it not make sense when you look at the collective picture, it also presupposes a metaphysics of nihilism. It presupposes that everything (reality) just "happened". To begin with, material components could not have "got there" without the action of a prime mover. I.E. - nothing happens without a cause. No phisical component can spirng into being from nothing wihtout a greater power or essence to initiate it and sustain it. And all this underpins any reference to a discussion on the nature of life itself. All in all - material components are what they are - material. Something caused it. Material components are limited by their own inherent properties and interact in a causal reality, with fixed boundaries. I would add that, in addition to your belief attribution argument earlier (which really doesn't have any significance to this argument), that people also like to ignore the "hard facts" of reason and metaphysics (most especially), and arbitrarily tell nature what it can and cannot do.

There is zero evidence to support a belief in a "prime mover". While we do not know the source of the cosmos (a prime theory last I heard was vacuum fluxuations), to resort to mysticism and supernaturalism simply because you don't have all the answers is intellectual treason. If you assume that everything and every event has a cause and you attribute "God" as the ultimate cause it begs the question of what caused God? And if God didn't need a cause then why does the cosmos? One problem with comprehending the Big Bang as well as other astronomical events such as black holes and the effects of gravity and speed on space-time, is we lack the capability to relate and reason with such events. Our brains are the product of evolution which is why they work very well with normal everyday 3rd dimensional life. It's difficult to understand that at unimaginable speeds mass increases and time slows down. Go fast enough and effect preceeds cause. Reason, as Kant and AoA know it, gets turned upside-down. Approach the event horizon of a black hole and you'll find particles coming into existence from nothing then popping back out of existence to nothing. Most physicists believe the universe is actually composed of 10 or 11 dimensions, not just the 3 we're familiar with. The human mind is incapable of understanding these extra dimensions but they can be proven mathematically. By dismissing mathematics you're actually dismissing a tool with greater capacity for explaining the universe than regular language itself. You know my view that most philosophy is bunk and perhaps this explains that belief somewhat.

Sage the Mage

17-02-2005, 12:59 AM

Both of yall, there's two spaces between a sentence and the next one.

Probably because I didn't see its relevance for moving the thread in a progressive direction, and I still don't, frankly.

If by progressive, you mean, "In the direction that supports my viewpoint," then yes it probably isn't. However, the important thing to note is there are physical signs (changes in brain waves, other things I don't know about which is why I said we need a science guy) when you think.

This comes in conflict with this:
If thought were a matter of physical transmission, it would be determined by chemical composition and reaction. Thought couldn't possibly be anything more than an incorporeal action, given data by sensibles. There is zero possibility for any other option.

I posted that formula to demonstrate to Xaf the utter futility of applying mathematical principles to something like ontology. That's like trying to mix oil and water - two completely different things.
So why does logic work then?

Oberon

17-02-2005, 01:11 AM

Both of yall, there's two spaces between a sentence and the next one.

Not in HTML there isnt.... :(

AgeOfAbnegation

17-02-2005, 01:34 AM

There is zero evidence to support a belief in a "prime mover". While we do not know the source of the cosmos (a prime theory last I heard was vacuum fluxuations), to resort to mysticism and supernaturalism simply because you don't have all the answers is intellectual treason.

The argument I brought forth regarding a necessary cause for the physical universe is self-evident. The term "God" is a suitable term for a "prime mover" - though we can change the term if you prefer. I didn't move into mysticism as you call it. Just keep pace with the flow of argument.

If you assume that everything and every event has a cause and you attribute "God" as the ultimate cause it begs the question of what caused God?

For the purposes of laying a foundation for the argument, it suffices to say that the temporal universe needs a prime mover to exist and remain in existence. THe material cosmos is temporal by means of its mutibility in time. Outside time is eternity. A state of eternity could be described as something that "is" - perfect actuality with no motion whatsoever. God is uncaused - God thereby "is". As it stands, God cannot be measured by methodology of quantity and quality that you ask for.

And if God didn't need a cause then why does the cosmos?

I just explained this, as the universe is a different mode of being - of contingency rather than neecessity.

One problem with comprehending the Big Bang as well as other astronomical events such as black holes and the effects of gravity and speed on space-time, is we lack the capability to relate and reason with such events. Our brains are the product of evolution which is why they work very well with normal everyday 3rd dimensional life. It's difficult to understand that at unimaginable speeds mass increases and time slows down. Go fast enough and effect preceeds cause.

WHy kick against the goad? Learn from the ancients. Of course you cannot master the cosmos with knowledge - thats why we travel the path of negative theology when philosophizing about the prime mover. You're right, our brains are made for this world. However, we cannot discount that which is above us by means of speculative reason. The most important thing I told you - which nobody can ever deny - is near the top of this post. There must be a prime mover.

Reason, as Kant and AoA know it, gets turned upside-down.

Was this rhetorical in nature? The fundamental structure of something - like reason - cannot change (or it would cease to be reason).

Approach the event horizon of a black hole and you'll find particles coming into existence from nothing then popping back out of existence to nothing. Most physicists believe the universe is actually composed of 10 or 11 dimensions, not just the 3 we're familiar with. The human mind is incapable of understanding these extra dimensions but they can be proven mathematically.

Nobody ever dismissed mathematics here - it is what it is. But please, apply mathematics to its intended objects.

By dismissing mathematics you're actually dismissing a tool with greater capacity for explaining the universe than regular language itself. You know my view that most philosophy is bunk and perhaps this explains that belief somewhat.

I don't think its philosophy you're against, since you're philosophizing now. You're certainly a smart person, and I know you got the Kant text. A few other interesting ones of note are some ancient texts - they thought much differently than a contemporary does, and we have much to learn from them. Even reading Plato is good for that stuff.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-02-2005, 01:38 AM

If by progressive, you mean, "In the direction that supports my viewpoint," then yes it probably isn't.

Quit your rhetorizing.

However, the important thing to note is there are physical signs (changes in brain waves, other things I don't know about which is why I said we need a science guy) when you think.

You missed the point. I'm saying that the intellect, while informed by sensibility, is totally incorporeal. This is not to say however that we are spirits in a host body or something cartesian like that - but you could get a slew of scientists to talk about brainwaves, and it would not change the point that physical matter could NEVER be thought.

This comes in conflict with this:

You lost me - explain better plz.

Sage the Mage

17-02-2005, 02:20 AM

You missed the point. I'm saying that the intellect, while informed by sensibility, is totally incorporeal. This is not to say however that we are spirits in a host body or something cartesian like that - but you could get a slew of scientists to talk about brainwaves, and it would not change the point that physical matter could NEVER be thought.
Thought generates a physical reaction (brainwaves). Now, I don't know about you, but I recall needing physical components (ie matter and energy) to generate a reaction like that.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-02-2005, 02:43 AM

Thought generates a physical reaction (brainwaves). Now, I don't know about you, but I recall needing physical components (ie matter and energy) to generate a reaction like that.

A brainwave is still a matter of corporeality. It is an effect, and a cause, of corporeal stimulation. The 4 basic elements, even air, are still considered corporeal because they compose the physical universe.

Oberon

17-02-2005, 02:51 AM

For the purposes of laying a foundation for the argument, it suffices to say that the temporal universe needs a prime mover to exist and remain in existence. THe material cosmos is temporal by means of its mutibility in time. Outside time is eternity. A state of eternity could be described as something that "is" - perfect actuality with no motion whatsoever. God is uncaused - God thereby "is". As it stands, God cannot be measured by methodology of quantity and quality that you ask for.

Maybe I'm mistaken here but you seem to view concepts such as "time" and "existence" from a philosophical/poetic viewpoint rather than from a scientific viewpoint (or "ought" from "is" IMO). You make bold statements with no evidence. "Outside time is eternity." Cite proof. Eternity may just be a concept that exists only in our minds. "God is uncaused - God thereby "is"." is an irrational assumption. Maybe: "God is uncaused - God does not exist except as a concept in man's mind."

WHy kick against the goad? Learn from the ancients. Of course you cannot master the cosmos with knowledge - thats why we travel the path of negative theology when philosophizing about the prime mover. You're right, our brains are made for this world. However, we cannot discount that which is above us by means of speculative reason. The most important thing I told you - which nobody can ever deny - is near the top of this post. There must be a prime mover.

This paragraph doesn't hold together well. Learn *what* from the ancients? That if you don't sacrifice x number of people on x day of the year x god will get angry? Please be more specific here. I agree you cannot master the cosmos with knowledge (another anthropomorphic phrase which leads me to believe you think in poetically rather than scientifically), only because the phrase is vague (what exactly does it mean for a human to "master" a place?) and mankind's abilities are limited. But I have more faith on our ability to accomplish goals with knowledge (read: science) than by "travelling the path of negative theology", whatever that means. I still don't believe you've offered sufficient evidence, objective or otherwise, to indicate there "must be a prime mover". While I do not discount the possibility that God exists, I do not affirm that God exists because there is insufficient evidence for the affirmative.

Was this rhetorical in nature? The fundamental structure of something - like reason - cannot change (or it would cease to be reason).

Reason, as mankind knows it through our limited faculties, does get turned upside-down when faced with the extremes of the physical universe. It's like dividing by zero.

I don't think its philosophy you're against, since you're philosophizing now. You're certainly a smart person, and I know you got the Kant text. A few other interesting ones of note are some ancient texts - they thought much differently than a contemporary does, and we have much to learn from them. Even reading Plato is good for that stuff.

I just got it in the mail today. Plato was a fascist though - not too interested in his views. And don't get me started on Aristotle and his f*cking 55 concentric, crystalline spheres which kept astronomy back for 2000 years.

Sage the Mage

17-02-2005, 03:26 AM

A brainwave is still a matter of corporeality. It is an effect, and a cause, of corporeal stimulation. The 4 basic elements, even air, are still considered corporeal because they compose the physical universe.
I'm saying because there's a release of energy (brainwaves), there must be a reaction to create that energy (thought). Since we can't create matter out of nothing, thought must be physical/corporeal/matter/energy.

I just got it in the mail today. Plato was a fascist though - not too interested in his views. And don't get me started on Aristotle and his f*cking 55 concentric, crystalline spheres which kept astronomy back for 2000 years.
Actually you just mean the politics of the middle ages, but that's another debate.

Oberon

17-02-2005, 03:38 AM

Actually you just mean the politics of the middle ages, but that's another debate.

While there are *some* similarities between Fascism and Feudalism, the politics of the Middle Ages were not the politics of Plato.

Sage the Mage

17-02-2005, 03:46 AM

I shoudn't have included Plato in the quote, I'm just saying that Aristotle wasn't the guy responsible for holding back science for 2,000 years :)

Oberon

17-02-2005, 04:06 AM

Mr Cranky (http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/spongebobgaypants.html) had a cool article about the religous right. My favorite part is:

evolution isn't a "theory" any more than the fact that the Earth is round is a "theory." You know what's a "theory" and a flimsy one at that? God. But you don't see me sneaking into churches in the heart of Jesusland and slapping "God is a theory" stickers all over the bibles.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-02-2005, 04:09 AM

Maybe I'm mistaken here but you seem to view concepts such as "time" and "existence" from a philosophical/poetic viewpoint rather than from a scientific viewpoint (or "ought" from "is" IMO).

Are we to assume that science is the key to understanding objects not suitable for its inquiry? Science i but one avenue, which the greater faculty of reason uses as a tool. Definitely not poetry however :p.

You make bold statements with no evidence. "Outside time is eternity." Cite proof. Eternity may just be a concept that exists only in our minds. "God is uncaused - God thereby "is"." is an irrational assumption. Maybe: "God is uncaused - God does not exist except as a concept in man's mind."

That's because only time can be measured. Eternity is a philosophical concept that is plausable by means of reason. It is the only possibility when we discover that all measurable things must have an immeasurable source. I'm sorry, but we can beat around the bush all day - but you will have to think outside the box of empirical scepticism if we can discuss these things. I have already demonstrated why this must be the case in case you ask for another explanation.

This paragraph doesn't hold together well. Learn *what* from the ancients? That if you don't sacrifice x number of people on x day of the year x god will get angry? Please be more specific here.

Fair enough. The ancients started from a different platform than the moderns. Their point of departure was "lets discover the reality we live in", not "lets analyze and master the reality we live in". Chew on that for a bit. Moderns want to have mastery over everything. Scepticism is the action of the modern who inexorably fails as an empiricist trying to master transcendental properties.

I agree you cannot master the cosmos with knowledge (another anthropomorphic phrase which leads me to believe you think in poetically rather than scientifically), only because the phrase is vague (what exactly does it mean for a human to "master" a place?) and mankind's abilities are limited. But I have more faith on our ability to accomplish goals with knowledge (read: science) than by "travelling the path of negative theology", whatever that means. I still don't believe you've offered sufficient evidence, objective or otherwise, to indicate there "must be a prime mover". While I do not discount the possibility that God exists, I do not affirm that God exists because there is insufficient evidence for the affirmative.

Again using a scientific methodology, God cannot be proven or disproven. As regards the prime mover, I don't know how much more simpler I can be. Let me ask you this - how could the physical realm come into existence? And if it has always been there, how could an eternal physical realm exist in movement that was not started? Anything eternal by nature cannot evolve or move to a new modality - it simply "is". Am I being clear?

Reason, as mankind knows it through our limited faculties, does get turned upside-down when faced with the extremes of the physical universe. It's like dividing by zero.

You lost me.

I just got it in the mail today. Plato was a fascist though - not too interested in his views.

Plato was a genius. You would call him a fascist because he discovered a natural hierarchy present in nature. He went too far in applying it to a socioeconomic system, but Aristotle treated that very well. In this case, your own ethics of egalitarianism could cause a bias. Personally, I believe it to be intellectually honest to put aside any preferential ideology, and seek to live and understand that which is objective.

And don't get me started on Aristotle and his f*cking 55 concentric, crystalline spheres which kept astronomy back for 2000 years.

Without Aristotle, the clock would have been pushed back many centuries (until another like him would come). Logic has not changed since him - he was the one who discovered it. Even Kant affirmed that. Anyone who wishes to learn to think properly will have read Aristotle.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-02-2005, 04:12 AM

I'm saying because there's a release of energy (brainwaves), there must be a reaction to create that energy (thought). Since we can't create matter out of nothing, thought must be physical/corporeal/matter/energy.

There is no doubt the intricate relationship between mind and body - as when we smile, it makes us feel better etc (in most cases), but you make no argument for how the freedom and "isness" of thinking and being can be summed up in a cause-effect relationship of material components.

Sage the Mage

17-02-2005, 04:40 AM

There is no doubt the intricate relationship between mind and body - as when we smile, it makes us feel better etc (in most cases), but you make no argument for how the freedom and "isness" of thinking and being can be summed up in a cause-effect relationship of material components.
That's because I didn't need one, unless you can show that I do.

And decorrupt your avatars everybody :)

Oberon

17-02-2005, 04:48 AM

Are we to assume that science is the key to understanding objects not suitable for its inquiry? Science i but one avenue, which the greater faculty of reason uses as a tool. Definitely not poetry however :p.

IMO there's very little which is not suitable for scientific inquiry. When it comes to how we came to be, this is a question perfectly suited to science as all other methods fail to offer a plausible, provable answer.

That's because only time can be measured. Eternity is a philosophical concept that is plausable by means of reason. It is the only possibility when we discover that all measurable things must have an immeasurable source. I'm sorry, but we can beat around the bush all day - but you will have to think outside the box of empirical scepticism if we can discuss these things. I have already demonstrated why this must be the case in case you ask for another explanation.

The problem is I do not believe that "all measurable things must have an immeasurable source" - it is an opinion not a fact. It may be true but you can't state it with certainty unless you're willing to back it up with evidence. When you say I need to "think outside the box of empirical scepticism" what manner of thinking do you suggest? Are all forms of rationalization equal? Should I believe one thing over another because it makes me feel better? If not, explain what form is better and why.

Fair enough. The ancients started from a different platform than the moderns. Their point of departure was "lets discover the reality we live in", not "lets analyze and master the reality we live in". Chew on that for a bit. Moderns want to have mastery over everything. Scepticism is the action of the modern who inexorably fails as an empiricist trying to master transcendental properties.

When you say "the ancients" are you refering to ancient Greeks, Chinese, Babylonians, Eskimos, Mayan, Celts? Who? I surely hope you're not lumping them all together in the mistaken belief that they all thought alike. It is because of the modern view to analyze and utilize (not necessarily master) reality that we live 3-4 times longer than those "ancients" and have things like computers and World of Warcraft and other items you and I enjoy. Scepticism is the action of a modern who smells bullsh*t when it's shoved in his face by mystics.

Again using a scientific methodology, God cannot be proven or disproven. As regards the prime mover, I don't know how much more simpler I can be. Let me ask you this - how could the physical realm come into existence? And if it has always been there, how could an eternal physical realm exist in movement that was not started? Anything eternal by nature cannot evolve or move to a new modality - it simply "is". Am I being clear?

How could the physical realm come into existence? I don't know. The physicists who study the universe and know many of its properties have theories which sound plausible but to be honest - nobody knows. It's okay to admit when you're don't know something and is much better than making something up or believing something simply because it offers an answer - regardless of whether the answer has any factual basis.

Plato was a genius. You would call him a fascist because he discovered a natural hierarchy present in nature. He went too far in applying it to a socioeconomic system, but Aristotle treated that very well. In this case, your own ethics of egalitarianism could cause a bias. Personally, I believe it to be intellectually honest to put aside any preferential ideology, and seek to live and understand that which is objective.

The problem with this line of reasoning is it tends to go too far. Let's assume there is a natural hierarchy within the human race and let's do the objective thing and give these "superior" people control over the "inferior" masses - make them king, leader, Führer. Power corrupts and before you know it the masses have a boot to their face. Egalitarianism and democracy, for all their faults, at least works to keep the corrupting effects of power at bay by distributing power and wealth (often one and the same) so no one person or faction can gain dictatorial control over another. There's plenty of political theories out there and many of which appear beautiful on paper but the suck in practice.

Without Aristotle, the clock would have been pushed back many centuries (until another like him would come). Logic has not changed since him - he was the one who discovered it. Even Kant affirmed that. Anyone who wishes to learn to think properly will have read Aristotle.

This is a very biased view you have which ignores the contributions made by non-European societies to science, mathematics, literature, etc. I guess the Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc couldn't learn to think properly until Europeans came and delivered the white man's burden and enlightened them.

PlagueBearer

17-02-2005, 05:29 AM

And if it has always been there, how could an eternal physical realm exist in movement that was not started? Anything eternal by nature cannot evolve or move to a new modality - it simply "is".

You conceive of the universe as an inherently three-dimensional place with time/movement imposed upon it. If three dimensions may exist independent of a prime mover (as you suppose they may), why can four dimensions not exist without that prime mover? Motion, be it mine or yours or the Earth's, does not necessarily depend upon an initiator. You conceive of a "Beginning of Time"; an instant when that Prime Mover set in motion the set of events that would eventually lead us to exist as we do presently. I conceive, however, of a universe where change/motion/time is inherent. I suppose that the notion of change/motion/time defies the very concept of a "Beginning of Time": Time cannot exist without itself, and the prime mover may not move unless motion is inherent in the universe.

For your consideration: A thing may have length, width, and volume without the aid of a Lengthener, a Widener, or a Volumizer. Why can they not have motion without a Mover?

Cloud_Walker

17-02-2005, 06:03 AM

I hereby dismiss all previous quibbling between us over the definition of faith, as the debate is most likely lost in others by now.

However...

I just explained this, as the universe is a different mode of being - of contingency rather than neecessity.

Hello there, Mr. Aquinas. Are you supporting the First Cause argument? Question for you: why can't the universe be eternal (i.e., prove the contingency of the universe)?

On another topic, thought is classified as something different than corporeality (an "idea") only because we cannot relate it to anything other than itself by thinking about it. That does not, however, make it true that it is different from corporeality.

And Oberon, I think you aren't catching what he is saying. For example, "outside of time is eternity" is a basic conclusion drawn on our basic notion of what time is. There's no need for proof. It is proof.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-02-2005, 08:10 AM

That's because I didn't need one, unless you can show that I do.

And decorrupt your avatars everybody :)

Certainly you need an argument. All you have with material components is a cause/effect relationship. BTW, how do u "decorrup" the avs?

Cloud_Walker

17-02-2005, 08:14 AM

BTW, how do u "decorrup" the avs?

I think you just reload them. I did that, though, and it got screwed again.

*tries again*

EDIT: Can't access User CP. Sweetness.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-02-2005, 08:26 AM

IMO there's very little which is not suitable for scientific inquiry. When it comes to how we came to be, this is a question perfectly suited to science as all other methods fail to offer a plausible, provable answer.

LOL I'm writing this while you're waiting for me in game - thats what u get for typing big posts :p j/k. Science helps alot, granted, but must give way to another methodology when empiricism fails us.

The problem is I do not believe that "all measurable things must have an immeasurable source" - it is an opinion not a fact. It may be true but you can't state it with certainty unless you're willing to back it up with evidence. When you say I need to "think outside the box of empirical scepticism" what manner of thinking do you suggest? Are all forms of rationalization equal? Should I believe one thing over another because it makes me feel better? If not, explain what form is better and why.

I believe that it can't be just a matter of opinion - it must be fact. Reason demonstrates it clearly. The thing to consider is that the material world cannot be eternal. If it was, there would be no movement - no reality as we know it - no change - only perfect actuality. If its not eternal then, there must be a beginning and end. Further, if there is a beginning and end, and not eternal, it is something that must come from the eternal (created by). We can know eternal by reference to the temporal. I used to talk about this all the time - knowing things by their opposites. THat's what I call "speculative reason". Aristotle will show u the way - the other would-be empirical philosophers are children and poets.

When you say "the ancients" are you refering to ancient Greeks, Chinese, Babylonians, Eskimos, Mayan, Celts? Who? I surely hope you're not lumping them all together in the mistaken belief that they all thought alike. It is because of the modern view to analyze and utilize (not necessarily master) reality that we live 3-4 times longer than those "ancients" and have things like computers and World of Warcraft and other items you and I enjoy. Scepticism is the action of a modern who smells bullsh*t when it's shoved in his face by mystics.

Sry, I was referring to ancient greek philosophy for that particular point. The mystogogue, as Kant would say, should indeed be watched out for, but even still, the disciple of scepticism. Both dogmatism and scepticism are the same thing in essence.

How could the physical realm come into existence? I don't know. The physicists who study the universe and know many of its properties have theories which sound plausible but to be honest - nobody knows. It's okay to admit when you're don't know something and is much better than making something up or believing something simply because it offers an answer - regardless of whether the answer has any factual basis.

I'm not against the big bang theory.

The problem with this line of reasoning is it tends to go too far. Let's assume there is a natural hierarchy within the human race and let's do the objective thing and give these "superior" people control over the "inferior" masses - make them king, leader, Führer. Power corrupts and before you know it the masses have a boot to their face. Egalitarianism and democracy, for all their faults, at least works to keep the corrupting effects of power at bay by distributing power and wealth (often one and the same) so no one person or faction can gain dictatorial control over another. There's plenty of political theories out there and many of which appear beautiful on paper but the suck in practice.

Agreed, democracy is one of the better forms of politics. We haven't arrived just yet, but we're getting there.

This is a very biased view you have which ignores the contributions made by non-European societies to science, mathematics, literature, etc. I guess the Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etc couldn't learn to think properly until Europeans came and delivered the white man's burden and enlightened them.

No, each culture certainly made its contributions. My reason for promoting the study of greek philosophy was because the unique cultural schema at the time was par excellence for producing the philosophers of legend. But of course, there are paralells across all ancient peoples - they all began with their gods and deities for instance - the reaction against which started wth the greeks. Most other cultures tied it in somehow, and precipitated a philosophy strewn with mysticism.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-02-2005, 08:30 AM

You conceive of the universe as an inherently three-dimensional place with time/movement imposed upon it.

Nope. Time/movement is not imposed, but enmeshed in (u need material objects to discover time).

If three dimensions may exist independent of a prime mover (as you suppose they may), why can four dimensions not exist without that prime mover? Motion, be it mine or yours or the Earth's, does not necessarily depend upon an initiator. You conceive of a "Beginning of Time"; an instant when that Prime Mover set in motion the set of events that would eventually lead us to exist as we do presently. I conceive, however, of a universe where change/motion/time is inherent. I suppose that the notion of change/motion/time defies the very concept of a "Beginning of Time": Time cannot exist without itself, and the prime mover may not move unless motion is inherent in the universe.

Just to simplify this, any dimension(s) would have to be considered part of temporality. G.W. Leibniz was aware of this when he reacted against descartes in the renissance. (dimensionless monads as God). That's funny, since he based his whole system on mathematics. But in the end it failed. Anyway I'm rambling, sry.

For your consideration: A thing may have length, width, and volume without the aid of a Lengthener, a Widener, or a Volumizer. Why can they not have motion without a Mover?

You mean volumizing hairspray (sry lol). Actually the first sentance is incorrect. There would have to be an agent that gives and sustains the volume.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-02-2005, 08:35 AM

Hello there, Mr. Aquinas. Are you supporting the First Cause argument? Question for you: why can't the universe be eternal (i.e., prove the contingency of the universe)?

I think I did earlier. You are right to attribute the first mover argument to Aquinas. He provides the answer - and rebuttals, in the first book of his summa theologica. Simplified answer - eternity must have no movement - but be in complete actuality with no admixture of potency. That means - no motion.

On another topic, thought is classified as something different than corporeality (an "idea") only because we cannot relate it to anything other than itself by thinking about it. That does not, however, make it true that it is different from corporeality.

I posited that the free action of the intellect could not be subject to material phenomenon.

And Oberon, I think you aren't catching what he is saying. For example, "outside of time is eternity" is a basic conclusion drawn on our basic notion of what time is. There's no need for proof. It is proof.

Correct. I'm not the best in trying to explain things :p.

Sage the Mage

17-02-2005, 02:29 PM

Certainly you need an argument. All you have with material components is a cause/effect relationship.

Actually, isn't it you who needs the argument on the basis of what you're saying to disprove mine?

Oberon

18-02-2005, 12:54 AM

And Oberon, I think you aren't catching what he is saying. For example, "outside of time is eternity" is a basic conclusion drawn on our basic notion of what time is. There's no need for proof. It is proof.

The problem is normal concepts of time and space break down as you approach the moment of the Big Bang. To ask what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the north pole. Time as we know it began with the Big Bang. Time isn't as linear as we'd like to believe it to be. The faster you go, the slower time goes. The closer you are to a major source of gravity (even the Earth's center), the slower time goes. Scientists have even measured a difference in the progression of time using syncronized atomic clocks - one on ground floor of a tall building and one at the time of the building (farther from Earth's center of gravity). Whether such a thing as eternity exists or not is open for debate and may never been known. As I said it may only exist as a concept in our minds. The universe is far more twisted and "strange" than most people give it credit for.

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 01:21 AM

I think I did earlier. You are right to attribute the first mover argument to Aquinas. He provides the answer - and rebuttals, in the first book of his summa theologica. Simplified answer - eternity must have no movement - but be in complete actuality with no admixture of potency. That means - no motion.

I was talking about the First Cause argument, but you seem to be advocating First Mover. Necessity and contingency are referenced by First Cause, they have nothing to do with First Mover, FYI. The First Mover argument only deals with motion, not time, and has nothing to do with eternity. Further, the First Cause argument is attributed to Aquinas, while the First Mover argument is attributed to Aristotle.

I posited that the free action of the intellect could not be subject to material phenomenon.

So, you're saying that material phenomenon cannot affect thought? This would mean that our experiences have no effect on our thoughts, or that all of reality exists as ideas.

Or are you talking about the inability of the materials of a brain to generate thoughts?

Correct. I'm not the best in trying to explain things :p.

Neither am I. I hate it.

The problem is normal concepts of time and space break down as you approach the moment of the Big Bang. To ask what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the north pole. Time as we know it began with the Big Bang. Time isn't as linear as we'd like to believe it to be. The faster you go, the slower time goes. The closer you are to a major source of gravity (even the Earth's center), the slower time goes. Scientists have even measured a difference in the progression of time using syncronized atomic clocks - one on ground floor of a tall building and one at the time of the building (farther from Earth's center of gravity). Whether such a thing as eternity exists or not is open for debate and may never been known. As I said it may only exist as a concept in our minds. The universe is far more twisted and "strange" than most people give it credit for.

I am aware of all of that, Oberon. You're still not looking at this the right way, though. Just consider "time." What is outside of "time" is effectively "timeless," or "lacking time." What would we call that? Eternity.

AgeOfAbnegation

18-02-2005, 01:21 AM

Actually, isn't it you who needs the argument on the basis of what you're saying to disprove mine?

I was never under the impression that your position was already proven, in order to be disproved.

raffster

18-02-2005, 01:23 AM

First ... the ONLY reason to follow any religion is because you have a faith in the existance of a divine being. This is something you either have or do not have; [/I]

This is not necessarily true. Buddhists, in general, don't believe in the existence of a god or a divine being. The historic Buddha, Shakyamuni, is no more than a teacher, a normal human being who has simply "awakened."

Everybody has a faith in something, whether it's belief in a god, belief in love and hope, and faith in faith itself. It will be very hard to imagine a person who has no faith in anything -- that means that he doesn't have faith in a tomorrow -- that must be a very sad and meaningless life.

You need faith to fall in love, as love itself is non-physical, cannot be grasped, cannot be fully explained and perceived by and through words.

trying to convince other people of what is an internal experience is pointless, worse, and this leads to my second point ... it's demeaning. Both to you and the person you are trying to inflict your faith upon.[/I]

I agree with you to a certain extent that people should mind their own business, and respect others' beliefs and practices. You are coming from the perspective that religious fanatics shouldn't be doing what they are doing because they are imposing their faith onto someone else. In most cases the reason why their evangelizing becomes pointless and demeaning is because they do not share their faith in love, but instead, in fear. But you see, a lot of people live in fear, and that’s what these hardcore religious groups capitalize on.

Think for a moment, is it really that bad to hear someone on the street who is saying: “Jesus Loves You.”? Now, someone who says, “Repent or you’ll go to hell.” is another thing.

Evangelists (both fake and real ones) exist for a reason. If not for them the world’s foremost religions wouldn’t be where they are now. If the early Apostles kept their mouths’ shut by praying all day and if the Buddhist Patriarchs decided to go up the mountain and stay there to meditate, Christianity and Buddhism would be nothing more today than ancient text.

If you really do have a faith then people will notice in how you conduct yourself (and no I don't mean by bumper stickers or stupid symbols on the back of cars or pointless jewellery) in your day to day life. [/I]

I agree. Actions do speak louder than words. A real Christian will exemplify holiness in his actions, a real Buddhist will exhibit his enlightened nature. Those who live their faith are often times the most successful evangelists because people are drawn to them naturally. One great example of this would be Mother Teresa.

If someone asks you about how you conduct yourself in life only then you have the right to talk with them about your faith, and only then.[/I]

Indeed. There is a time and place for everything. When someone is “ready” and “open” to hear matters of faith, then that is the best time to speak with him. Sensitivity is often an overlooked aspect in sharing faith.

So please don't prostitute your faith; it's not cool, it's not clever, it's simply demeaning and embarrassing.[/I]

Sharing one’s faith and “preaching” one’s faith are two different sides of the coin. It is usually in preaching that is misunderstood and turns people away. Those who have truly experienced what it IS to be in their faith know better than to preach, so they share without imposing and scaring.

And, yes, I have a faith. No, I'm not a Christian. No I will not talk with you about my faith, it is something that is private to me; as should your faith be to you, whether you be an Atheist*, Muslim, Christian or anything else.[/I]

Good for you. But you probably don’t realize the whole irony of your intention in this post. If you didn’t feel like talking about faith in the first place then you shouldn’t have started this post to begin with. Why? Because I think that someone who has deep conviction with his faith shouldn’t be bothered or disturbed by the very reason that you started this thread.

The mere fact that you think professing one’s faith is “prostituting, not cool, not clever, demeaning and embarrassing” in the context of “preaching” shows that deep down inside you are probably uncertain of your own faith. If one of those Christian cultists came up to me right now and said, “You’re going to hell if you don’t believe in Jesus.” I’d simply smile and walk away.

Yes, Atheism is a faith - there is no proof of lack of existence of a divine being, and as any intelligent person knows lack of proof is not proof. [/I]

I think that you are trying to justify your belief system by equating atheism as a form of faith, or that you need faith to be an atheist. This just cannot be. “I have faith in atheism” is the same as saying “I believe in the belief that there is no-god.” That just doesn’t make any sense to me. If you believe that there is no god, what is there to believe in [no-god] in the first place?

What’s wrong with just saying “I’m an atheist” or “I don’t believe in anything that has to do with the supernatural, mystical or divine”?

Just my two cents.

Oberon

18-02-2005, 01:28 AM

I am aware of all of that, Oberon. You're still not looking at this the right way, though. Just consider "time." What is outside of "time" is effectively "timeless," or "lacking time." What would we call that? Eternity.

Eternity is "infinite time" and "a seemingly endless or immeasurable time" by definition (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=eternity). It is time without end. It you want to consider a state of being without time, i.e. "outside of time" or "timeless" or "lacking time" it would be the opposite of eternity. Eternity is time without end, not no time at all.

timeless = 0
eternity = http://scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/Math/Symbols/infty.gif

AgeOfAbnegation

18-02-2005, 01:32 AM

I was talking about the First Cause argument, but you seem to be advocating First Mover.

I was under the impression that the first cause and the first mover are the same thing.

Necessity and contingency are referenced by First Cause, they have nothing to do with First Mover, FYI. The First Mover argument only deals with motion, not time, and has nothing to do with eternity.

Nope. If it deals with motion, it must necessarily deal with time, since time and motion are necessarily intertwined. Further, eternity must also be positied by means of the dialectic of the temporal.

Further, the First Cause argument is attributed to Aquinas, while the First Mover argument is attributed to Aristotle.

Cause and move are the same thing. Aquinas was the disciple of aristotle in things speculative.

So, you're saying that material phenomenon cannot affect thought? This would mean that our experiences have no effect on our thoughts, or that all of reality exists as ideas.

Affecting thought is different than being thought. Naturally, if I see a hot chic, I'll think about her. But, thinking per se is not caused by nor composed of physical reaction.

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 01:37 AM

Eternity is "infinite time" and "a seemingly endless or immeasurable time" by definition (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=eternity). It is time without end. It you want to consider a state of being without time, i.e. "outside of time" or "timeless" or "lacking time" it would be the opposite of eternity. Eternity is time without end, not no time at all.

Eternity may not be the correct definition. As you pointed out, technically, eternity means something other than what I said. But tell me, what is the opposite of infinity [of anything]?

AgeOfAbnegation

18-02-2005, 01:38 AM

Eternity is "infinite time" and "a seemingly endless or immeasurable time" by definition (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=eternity). It is time without end. It you want to consider a state of being without time, i.e. "outside of time" or "timeless" or "lacking time" it would be the opposite of eternity. Eternity is time without end, not no time at all.

timeless = 0
eternity = http://scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/Math/Symbols/infty.gif

CW has u beat there Ob. Time cannot be endless since it is characterized by motion moving from a state of potentiality to actuality. Also, in time, this path is never (nor could ever be) fully realized. If time was eternal, there could be no distinction in anything, and no motion whatsoever. Eternity must be "outside" time, for lack of a better term.

Sage the Mage

18-02-2005, 01:44 AM

Eternity may not be the correct definition. As you pointed out, technically, eternity means something other than what I said. But tell me, what is the opposite of infinity [of anything]?
Negative infinity :P

But, thinking per se is not caused by nor composed of physical reaction.
It would be nice if you gave your logic for this at this point in time wouldn't it?

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 01:48 AM

I was under the impression that the first cause and the first mover are the same thing.

They are not. A first cause of the universe is needed only if the universe is contingent. A first mover of the universe is needed only to account for the motion in the universe, not the necessity of the universe itself.

Nope. If it deals with motion, it must necessarily deal with time, since time and motion are necessarily intertwined. Further, eternity must also be positied by means of the dialectic of the temporal.

EDIT: See next post.

Cause and move are the same thing. Aquinas was the disciple of aristotle in things speculative.

To the first part, cause of the universe and motion in the universe are two completely different things. That much seems obvious.

To the second part, that's nice, but be careful to whom you attribute credit.

Affecting thought is different than being thought. Naturally, if I see a hot chic, I'll think about her. But, thinking per se is not caused by nor composed of physical reaction.

For one, why can't it? Sheer complexity?

For two, if you can't answer the first one, prove thoughts exist.

raffster

18-02-2005, 01:50 AM

Eternity may not be the correct definition. As you pointed out, technically, eternity means something other than what I said. But tell me, what is the opposite of infinity [of anything]?

I think the opposite of eternity is "Mu" or nothingness. Both concepts are beyond time. Time cannot contain what is eternal and neither can it contain nothing.

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 01:52 AM

CW has u beat there Ob. Time cannot be endless since it is characterized by motion moving from a state of potentiality to actuality. Also, in time, this path is never (nor could ever be) fully realized. If time was eternal, there could be no distinction in anything, and no motion whatsoever. Eternity must be "outside" time, for lack of a better term.

One thing, time is merely slices of eternity; a limited perception. Motion is, therefore, slices of a greater stillness.

raffster

18-02-2005, 01:57 AM

One thing, time is merely slices of eternity; a limited perception. Motion is, therefore, slices of a greater stillness.

From that perspective each moment is actually eternal in itself but strangely "part" of a "larger" eternity. In-between motion there is stillness that is indeed part of a greater stillness.

If you guys continue discussing like this someone's bound to realize something deep, profound, and maybe even life-changing. :clap:

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 01:57 AM

I think the opposite of eternity is "Mu" or nothingness. Both concepts are beyond time. Time cannot contain what is eternal and neither can it contain nothing.

Thank you, raffster.

From here I will speak absurdly:

Nothing (capitalized for ease of argument) is not a concept. Nothing doesn't exist. Nothing is not. You cannot entertain the idea without making it Something, that which it (<--can't call it "it") is (<--can't "be") supposed to be (not be) the opposite of. Nothing cannot be defined, as it is the undefineable. In effect, there is no opposite of infinity. Infinity stands unopposed. (I guess it seems fitting that we can never fully conceptualize infinity.) This whole paragraph is absurd even just from using the word "Nothing."

EDIT:
"From nothing comes nothing." If ever there is nothing of something, then that something doesn't exist.

Oberon

18-02-2005, 02:00 AM

Eternity may not be the correct definition. As you pointed out, technically, eternity means something other than what I said. But tell me, what is the opposite of infinity [of anything]?

It depends, if something is finite it is not infinite but the true opposite would vary depending on the subject at hand - nonexistent, zero, nothing, nadir, naught.

CW has u beat there Ob. Time cannot be endless since it is characterized by motion moving from a state of potentiality to actuality. Also, in time, this path is never (nor could ever be) fully realized. If time was eternal, there could be no distinction in anything, and no motion whatsoever. Eternity must be "outside" time, for lack of a better term.

If time cannot be endless (as I believe) and if eternity is endless time, then eternity is a concept which doesn't apply to the physical universe - i.e. there is no such thing as eternity. Eternity must be "outside" of existence - imaginary for lack of a better term.

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 02:07 AM

If time cannot be endless (as I believe) and if eternity is endless time, then eternity is a concept which doesn't apply to the physical universe - i.e. there is no such thing as eternity. Eternity must be "outside" of existence - imaginary for lack of a better term.

Eternity need not be endless time. Think of the slices of time that I mentioned. Imagine there are only 3 seconds of time. We exist in that time and perceive the passing of the 3 seconds, and the end which you seek comes soon enough. But then take a step outside and look at that 3 second block of time apart from us. What is that block doing? Is it changing? No, it is "eternal." There is no "passage" of time.

Oberon

18-02-2005, 02:26 AM

Eternity need not be endless time. Think of the slices of time that I mentioned. Imagine there are only 3 seconds of time. We exist in that time and perceive the passing of the 3 seconds, and the end which you seek comes soon enough. But then take a step outside and look at that 3 second block of time apart from us. What is that block doing? Is it changing? No, it is "eternal." There is no "passage" of time.

What you are describing is a mental exercise (stepping outside of time and looking back on it) and I've already admitted eternity is a concept of the imagination. To say it is real though is something else and to use it as 'evidence' to support your beliefs is another leap in faith still.

AgeOfAbnegation

18-02-2005, 02:41 AM

It would be nice if you gave your logic for this at this point in time wouldn't it?

I thought I posted it upteen times?

AgeOfAbnegation

18-02-2005, 02:57 AM

They are not. A first cause of the universe is needed only if the universe is contingent. A first mover of the universe is needed only to account for the motion in the universe, not the necessity of the universe itself.

I beg to differ. The prime mover is necessary for the universe. The reason for this is because a first cause must have a will to cause a contingent universe out of its eternal dwelling. If the first cause was not a "personal" first cause, eternity - without form or motion - could not have acted to create a temporal domain. In short - there must necessarily be a "personal God or first mover", other than a "force".

For one, why can't it? Sheer complexity?

For two, if you can't answer the first one, prove thoughts exist.

I dont think they do "exist" - as to exist would be to attribute being to it. Thinking is a label to denote the composing and diving action of reasoning - its a power in the person.

raffster

18-02-2005, 03:02 AM

Thank you, raffster.

From here I will speak absurdly:

Nothing (capitalized for ease of argument) is not a concept. Nothing doesn't exist. Nothing is not. You cannot entertain the idea without making it Something, that which it (<--can't call it "it") is (<--can't "be") supposed to be (not be) the opposite of. Nothing cannot be defined, as it is the undefineable. In effect, there is no opposite of infinity. Infinity stands unopposed. (I guess it seems fitting that we can never fully conceptualize infinity.) This whole paragraph is absurd even just from using the word "Nothing."

EDIT:
"From nothing comes nothing." If ever there is nothing of something, then that something doesn't exist.

If infinity/eternity contains everything then it must also contain nothing, assuming that everything contains everything, including nothing. Or does nothing contain everything? If nothing is not a concept, if "it" doesn't exist and cannot be defined, then nothing is the same as infinite and eternal in which none of them can be defined, at least not yet. That is the limit of the human mind.

If any of you can answer the question "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" then you can probably define these words we're talking about.

AgeOfAbnegation

18-02-2005, 03:20 AM

From that perspective each moment is actually eternal in itself but strangely "part" of a "larger" eternity. In-between motion there is stillness that is indeed part of a greater stillness.

If you guys continue discussing like this someone's bound to realize something deep, profound, and maybe even life-changing. :clap:

Hello one-of-my-new-favorite-posters ^^. CW is right. There can not be an opposite of eternity, due to its utter simplicity. Even the negative would be eternal - and thus, the same as eternity.

Oberon

18-02-2005, 03:44 AM

If infinity/eternity contains everything then it must also contain nothing, assuming that everything contains everything, including nothing. Or does nothing contain everything? If nothing is not a concept, if "it" doesn't exist and cannot be defined, then nothing is the same as infinite and eternal in which none of them can be defined, at least not yet. That is the limit of the human mind.

infinity: unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity

eternity: infinite time

nothing: the absence of all magnitude or quantity

These concepts can be defined however they rarely can be applied to normal everyday life. One problem I have with such debates is they tend to twist language to the point where it loses functionality in order to make a point which otherwise could not be made. An example, people who use "proof" as an absolute. Language is a tool developed by humans to communicate ideas with one another. If you take a word and alter its meaning so it can no longer communicate an idea, you stop making sense.

"Everything" does not contain "nothing" by definition. If you want to alter the definition of "everything" or "nothing" to make a point there is no sense in further debate. Debate is only productive if both sides agree on the meaning of the words they're using to exchange ideas.

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 04:22 AM

I beg to differ. The prime mover is necessary for the universe. The reason for this is because a first cause must have a will to cause a contingent universe out of its eternal dwelling. If the first cause was not a "personal" first cause, eternity - without form or motion - could not have acted to create a temporal domain. In short - there must necessarily be a "personal God or first mover", other than a "force".

Ok. A First Mover is something that causes the motion in the universe. The motion in the universe is said to be unexplainable, by some, without an account of a divine being that has the power to move something without first being moved. This is an argument for the existence of God.

A First Cause is something that created the universe to end infinite regress in the principle of sufficient reason. Everything we see has a cause, every cause has a cause, and so on till forever. A Divine being outside of this chain of causes is necessary to start the first one, and therefore is responsible for our universe. This is another argument for the existence of God.

You seem to want to say these arguments are the same.

BTW, The First Cause causing the universe implies the universe we see around us, which includes motion.

I dont think they do "exist" - as to exist would be to attribute being to it. Thinking is a label to denote the composing and diving action of reasoning - its a power in the person.

So, prove that reasoning exists. Or, prove the person exists.

If infinity/eternity contains everything then it must also contain nothing, assuming that everything contains everything, including nothing. Or does nothing contain everything? If nothing is not a concept, if "it" doesn't exist and cannot be defined, then nothing is the same as infinite and eternal in which none of them can be defined, at least not yet. That is the limit of the human mind.

You cannot contain that which does not exist, because it does not exist to be contained. Nothing cannot contain anything at all. Nothing does not exist.

And if you'll read up, you'll notice I said that it seems fitting that we can't fully conceptualize infinity.

If any of you can answer the question "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" then you can probably define these words we're talking about.

You can make up any answer you want for that question. It won't ever make sense to human reason as it is right now, and we won't agree with it. But you sure can answer it.

Now, if you come up with a new system of logic that more closely correlates experience and answers that question, then you will achieve that enlightenment you look for, Mr. Zen Buddhist. However, I doubt it is that exact question that will be answered, as it was just an exercise made up by another human just like you and me.[/off track]

nothing: the absence of all magnitude or quantity

You can't define the undefineable! You cannot even name it, or call it anything, or reference it. It does not exist (note I can't even talk/think about it without contradicting myself, neither can you). Here, let's do an exercise. There are infinitely many thoughts and concepts that are not going through my head right now. Define them. Do the same for yours.

Oberon

18-02-2005, 04:36 AM

You can't define the undefineable! You cannot even name it, or call it anything, or reference it. It does not exist (note I can't even talk/think about it without contradicting myself, neither can you). Here, let's do an exercise. There are infinitely many thoughts and concepts that are not going through my head right now. Define them. Do the same for yours.

"Nothing" is definable - pick up a dictionary is you don't believe me. It's named and noted. Nothing *is* a concept - the concept of absence of anything. In math it's referred to as 'zero'.

Your mental exercise is irrational. I have no access to your thoughts and if I did it would take an eternity to define an infinity of anything. Try this mental exercise. You have $100 in you bank account. You pay $50 for World of Warcraft and another $50 for dinner at a nice restaurant. How much do you have in your bank account?

raffster

18-02-2005, 05:20 AM

Hello one-of-my-new-favorite-posters ^^. CW is right. There can not be an opposite of eternity, due to its utter simplicity. Even the negative would be eternal - and thus, the same as eternity.

Everything has an opposite, that is the law of duality. Eternity is not exempted. There has to be an opposite of eternity for there to be an eternity, just like there would be no light if there was no darkness. Perhaps we just do not know what it is called because it [the opposite of eternity] can't be called anything but it doesn't mean that eternity doesn't have an opposite.

CW, Zen koans aren't meant to be answered in an intellectual way so an answer could be something as off as "The birds ate the ants while the stone was sleeping" but could only be truly perceived by someone who has reached that level of consciousness. I'm saying this because what we are debating about are beyond words and what we are normally capable of understanding intellectually.

And what does one gain in perceiving the unperceivable, in encompassing the boundless? I'm guessing that it's realizing that everything in the whole universe is interconnected to everything else in a special way. Perhaps that is the reason why spiritual masters across all religions and faiths are naturally compassionate: they have embodied the golden rule of "What you do unto others, you do unto me." This leads us back to the issue raised by the creator of this thread ... what is greatly amiss in most religions today is that they [the religions] have become so intellectualized and the essence in which the religion originally stood for has become forgotten.

I dunno if I'm making sense but I hope that everything we're talking about doesn't just stick to the intellect but somehow cause a deeper realization within, ultimately making us become more compassionate individuals. :)

AgeOfAbnegation

18-02-2005, 05:31 AM

You seem to want to say these arguments are the same.

They are two ways of describing one fundamental principle.

So, prove that reasoning exists. Or, prove the person exists.

Apples to oranges. The proof of reasoning is in its action, which allows for our posts. Both ask for a demonstration of speculative reason. I don't think one could prove much of anything, save by the laws that reason demands.

Sage the Mage

18-02-2005, 05:35 AM

I thought I posted it upteen times?
But...you haven't posted it umpteen times this year :)

Hello one-of-my-new-favorite-posters ^^. CW is right. There can not be an opposite of eternity, due to its utter simplicity. Even the negative would be eternal - and thus, the same as eternity.
Eternal is that without a beginning and an end, so the opposite would be that with a beginning and end, you know...terminal?

Why the hell did you all get hung up on a discussion of nothing?
So what are we at, a start of the universe exists?

AgeOfAbnegation

18-02-2005, 05:39 AM

Everything has an opposite, that is the law of duality. Eternity is not exempted.

The law of duality as you say applies only to that which is measurable. Eternity is everything and nothing - its is beyond any linguistic device.

There has to be an opposite of eternity for there to be an eternity, just like there would be no light if there was no darkness. Perhaps we just do not know what it is called because it [the opposite of eternity] can't be called anything but it doesn't mean that eternity doesn't have an opposite.

As I mentioned above, a positive and negative infinitiy are the same thing - infinity. It cannot be conceived of in terms of quantity.

I dunno if I'm making sense but I hope that everything we're talking about doesn't just stick to the intellect but somehow cause a deeper realization within, ultimately making us become more compassionate individuals. :)

I like that about you. I'd say that since thoughts give rise to action, a viable ethics can be discovered through enlightening discussion. Not only compassion as well - but the roots of compassion, and why its to be sought.

raffster

18-02-2005, 06:13 AM

The law of duality as you say applies only to that which is measurable. Eternity is everything and nothing - its is beyond any linguistic device.

As I mentioned above, a positive and negative infinitiy are the same thing - infinity. It cannot be conceived of in terms of quantity.

I like that about you. I'd say that since thoughts give rise to action, a viable ethics can be discovered through enlightening discussion. Not only compassion as well - but the roots of compassion, and why its to be sought.

Thank you for the kind words. I've always believed that respect is what makes us humans different from all other creatures. Once respect is breached or "not respected" we become no different from the animals because sometimes, even animals show some form of respect.

I have to disagree about what you said about the law of duality as being able to be applied only to things that are measurable. Perhaps from that perspective you are correct, but then, on the flip side, how do you measure Good and Evil? Kindness and hatred? Love and hate? Wisdom and idiocy? Fate and disbelief? These unmeasurable things also fall under the law of duality, but perhaps a higher one [a law of duality that governs the unmeasurable]?

In Zen Buddhist readings I have surmised that emptiness (in the Buddhist context) transcends all -- and in realizing that emptiness is when the first glimpse of enlightenment happens.

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 06:14 AM

What you are describing is a mental exercise (stepping outside of time and looking back on it) and I've already admitted eternity is a concept of the imagination. To say it is real though is something else and to use it as 'evidence' to support your beliefs is another leap in faith still.

It is a way of looking at things that solves more problems. In truth, you don't know if anything outside of your thoughts is true. Anything at all. Why are you bothering with this?

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 06:19 AM

"Nothing" is definable - pick up a dictionary is you don't believe me. It's named and noted. Nothing *is* a concept - the concept of absence of anything. In math it's referred to as 'zero'.

Your mental exercise is irrational. I have no access to your thoughts and if I did it would take an eternity to define an infinity of anything. Try this mental exercise. You have $100 in you bank account. You pay $50 for World of Warcraft and another $50 for dinner at a nice restaurant. How much do you have in your bank account?

I'm talking about Nothing (with a capital N) being the opposite of infinity or existence. Nothing meaning non-existence.

The mental exercise is perfectly rational, and I know you have no access to my thoughts. That is precisely why I stated "Do the same with yours." You cannot define that which doesn't exist. What would you define? Definition applies to things that exist. I'll try it one more time: tell me about all of the thoughts not running through your head right now.

Your exercise isn't on the same subject. It is a local nothingness in my bank account, or just a different arrangement of the $100.

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 06:25 AM

Everything has an opposite, that is the law of duality. Eternity is not exempted. There has to be an opposite of eternity for there to be an eternity, just like there would be no light if there was no darkness. Perhaps we just do not know what it is called because it [the opposite of eternity] can't be called anything but it doesn't mean that eternity doesn't have an opposite.

The law of duality exists within Existence. Existence is not governed by that which it creates.

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 06:28 AM

They are two ways of describing one fundamental principle.

They are two ways of arguing for the existence of God. A First Cause is also the First Mover, of course, but a First Mover is not necessarily a First Cause. Actually, there may not even be a First Cause, but there may be a First Mover. Just like how a square is a rhombus, but a rhombus is not a square.

The proof of reasoning is in its action, which allows for our posts.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Reasoning exists because I am reasoning right now." That is begging the question.

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 06:32 AM

CW, Zen koans aren't meant to be answered in an intellectual way so an answer could be something as off as "The birds ate the ants while the stone was sleeping" but could only be truly perceived by someone who has reached that level of consciousness. I'm saying this because what we are debating about are beyond words and what we are normally capable of understanding intellectually.

Not talking or thinking about the question? Instead just feeling? I know exactly what you are talking about, and I agree. We are bound by our thoughts, and the material world of our senses is infinite. However, I prefer saying "Just shut up and sense" instead of asking a question :)

raffster

18-02-2005, 06:34 PM

The law of duality exists within Existence. Existence is not governed by that which it creates.

But where did existence come from? Don't the universal laws transcend all things as they are the ones that govern all things? Existence is something that can be perceived (you exist, I exist, this forum exists), laws however, cannot be perceived (where does the law of duality reside?). Which is greater then?

AgeOfAbnegation

18-02-2005, 06:45 PM

Thank you for the kind words. I've always believed that respect is what makes us humans different from all other creatures. Once respect is breached or "not respected" we become no different from the animals because sometimes, even animals show some form of respect.

That's an interesting point. I'd qualify that however in that people should be "civil" towards others, but respect should be earned.

I have to disagree about what you said about the law of duality as being able to be applied only to things that are measurable. Perhaps from that perspective you are correct, but then, on the flip side, how do you measure Good and Evil? Kindness and hatred? Love and hate? Wisdom and idiocy? Fate and disbelief? These unmeasurable things also fall under the law of duality, but perhaps a higher one [a law of duality that governs the unmeasurable]?

Good and evil (and the others you mentioned) are not opposites. Only the good is. Evil is simply a privation of the good, as darkness is simply the absense of light.

In Zen Buddhist readings I have surmised that emptiness (in the Buddhist context) transcends all -- and in realizing that emptiness is when the first glimpse of enlightenment happens.

Buddhism is rather limited in offering the enlightment it promises. It primarily is a philosophy that excludes metaphysics, which enables one to speak of trancendental things properly.

AgeOfAbnegation

18-02-2005, 06:50 PM

They are two ways of arguing for the existence of God. A First Cause is also the First Mover, of course, but a First Mover is not necessarily a First Cause. Actually, there may not even be a First Cause, but there may be a First Mover. Just like how a square is a rhombus, but a rhombus is not a square.

I explained how a first mover would necessarily have to be a first cause. The rhombus example is not on the same plane. This is, unless you refer to the first cause as being the method in which the universe is created - in which I would agree. However, I'm sure we can agree that the first cause per se must necessarily be attributed to the first mover.

Let me rephrase that for you: "Reasoning exists because I am reasoning right now." That is begging the question.

I'm really not sure what your point is in asking for a proof of this sort.

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 07:20 PM

But where did existence come from? Don't the universal laws transcend all things as they are the ones that govern all things? Existence is something that can be perceived (you exist, I exist, this forum exists), laws however, cannot be perceived (where does the law of duality reside?). Which is greater then?

The law of duality of course resides where anything at all can reside, even abstractions of experience: existence.

"Where did existence come from?" is a question based on flawed assumptions.

Cloud_Walker

18-02-2005, 07:28 PM

I explained how a first mover would necessarily have to be a first cause. The rhombus example is not on the same plane. This is, unless you refer to the first cause as being the method in which the universe is created - in which I would agree. However, I'm sure we can agree that the first cause per se must necessarily be attributed to the first mover.

First Cause means the cause of the universe, the cause of existence (if you've been following along with all of my arguments, I have indirectly debunked this argument for God a couple times), not the first cause of things within the universe. That second type of first cause would be the same as a First Mover.

This is why things like contingency and necessity of the universe are discussed with the First Cause argument.

I'm really not sure what your point is in asking for a proof of this sort.

You claimed that thoughts cannot be the result of materials and their processes in the brain. I disagree with that, and am therefore challenging your position. I asked you to justify it by proving that thoughts exist. You said that they don't, and said instead that reasoning exists in a person. I then asked you to prove either reasoning or the person exists. You have yet to do either.

AgeOfAbnegation

18-02-2005, 09:13 PM

First Cause means the cause of the universe, the cause of existence (if you've been following along with all of my arguments, I have indirectly debunked this argument for God a couple times), not the first cause of things within the universe. That second type of first cause would be the same as a First Mover.

Things "within" the universe IS the universe - since anything not temporal must be contained of composites - even spatiality. As Malebranche correctly maintained, a cubic foot of air is sill on the same page as a cubic foot of lead - its sill part of spatiality.

You claimed that thoughts cannot be the result of materials and their processes in the brain.

I claimed that thoughts ARE NOT composed of materials and their processes. I did however say that thoughts come by means of them (after all, we need something to think about, and we are thus informed by the senses).

I disagree with that, and am therefore challenging your position. I asked you to justify it by proving that thoughts exist. You said that they don't, and said instead that reasoning exists in a person. I then asked you to prove either reasoning or the person exists. You have yet to do either.

Re-read my reply to that. I think I mentioned something about scientific proofs.. :scratch:

Oberon

18-02-2005, 10:28 PM

It is a way of looking at things that solves more problems. In truth, you don't know if anything outside of your thoughts is true. Anything at all. Why are you bothering with this?

This is a good example of the perversion of the meaning of a word to the point where it becomes useless. You are using "know" as an absolute (or should it be "Know" with a capital K?). Human beings are finite. Language is a tool used by we finite human beings to communicate our finite ideas. If you want all words to be used as absolutes then language turns to babble. You can use such absolutes I suppose in philosophy which is why so much of it is bunk, but in real life if you do that you'll go nowhere.

I'm talking about Nothing (with a capital N) being the opposite of infinity or existence. Nothing meaning non-existence.

The mental exercise is perfectly rational, and I know you have no access to my thoughts. That is precisely why I stated "Do the same with yours." You cannot define that which doesn't exist. What would you define? Definition applies to things that exist. I'll try it one more time: tell me about all of the thoughts not running through your head right now.

Your exercise isn't on the same subject. It is a local nothingness in my bank account, or just a different arrangement of the $100.

Your exercise is like asking someone the color of an invisible dragon. Again you're twisting language to make an irrational exercise appear to support your beliefs.

raffster

18-02-2005, 11:11 PM

Your exercise is like asking someone the color of an invisible dragon. Again you're twisting language to make an irrational exercise appear to support your beliefs.

I don't think CW is twisting language per se to support his beliefs, but rather, that is just how he "manifests" his "perception" of the "indescribable".

I personally think that everybody has a very good point here, which point is right or wrong, nobody can know for sure.

One of the "goals" in Zen meditation is to reach a point of non-thinking. It is not about emptying your mind of thoughts, but rather not thinking of not thinking. Stuff like these are beyond words. They have to be perceived on an experiential level as they can never be intellectualized.

To directly encounter eternity, infinity, nothingness and emptiness is probably the greatest of all pursuits.

Cloud_Walker

19-02-2005, 02:18 AM

Things "within" the universe IS the universe - since anything not temporal must be contained of composites - even spatiality. As Malebranche correctly maintained, a cubic foot of air is sill on the same page as a cubic foot of lead - its sill part of spatiality.

Well, you are helping me debunk the arguments. I am telling you that that is how those arguments present them: First Cause as outside the universe (so that it may cause it) and First Mover as inside (or at least partially) so that it may interact with it to create motion.

I am in no way supporting the validity of them. I never have.

I claimed that thoughts ARE NOT composed of materials and their processes. I did however say that thoughts come by means of them (after all, we need something to think about, and we are thus informed by the senses).

Ok, much better. You said that "I posited that the free action of the intellect could not be subject to material phenomenon." - Post #91. Subject = caused by. So you actually don't agree with that statement?

Re-read my reply to that. I think I mentioned something about scientific proofs.. :scratch:

Please refer me to a post #.

This is a good example of the perversion of the meaning of a word to the point where it becomes useless. You are using "know" as an absolute (or should it be "Know" with a capital K?). Human beings are finite. Language is a tool used by we finite human beings to communicate our finite ideas. If you want all words to be used as absolutes then language turns to babble. You can use such absolutes I suppose in philosophy which is why so much of it is bunk, but in real life if you do that you'll go nowhere.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. "Know" as an absolute? Are you just trying to defend your viewpoint that you actually do know something with absolute certainty?

Nevermind, let's go back a step or two. How come the universe can't exist as the way I described it (all three seconds in view, from outside)? Of course, you can't really step outside of the universe to view it in such a way, that was just to illustrate a point. But after all, time is a dimension.

Your exercise is like asking someone the color of an invisible dragon.

Exactly! You can't say anything about that which does not exist! Nothing (<---capital) cannot be conceptualized.

Oberon

19-02-2005, 04:49 AM

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. "Know" as an absolute? Are you just trying to defend your viewpoint that you actually do know something with absolute certainty?

No, I'm trying to explain why the term "know" was never meant to be followed "with absolute certainty" because you can never know anything with absolute certainty. Doing so invalidates the sentence and specifically the word "know". We are finite creatures with finite abilities. Language is a tool we developed to express our finite thoughts. Throwing an invite or absolute term into language is like dividing by zero. Don't do it - you won't make sense.

Nevermind, let's go back a step or two. How come the universe can't exist as the way I described it (all three seconds in view, from outside)? Of course, you can't really step outside of the universe to view it in such a way, that was just to illustrate a point. But after all, time is a dimension.

I don't mean the universe can't exist in one way or another. I do mean you can't know (capital "K" or not) so what's the point in asking? Might as well ask for the final digit of Pi.

AgeOfAbnegation

19-02-2005, 05:53 AM

Well, you are helping me debunk the arguments. I am telling you that that is how those arguments present them: First Cause as outside the universe (so that it may cause it) and First Mover as inside (or at least partially) so that it may interact with it to create motion.

You probably don't support them because obviously you don't grasp them correctly. Nothing can be "partially" inside the universe. In addition, I told you that the first cause and first mover have to be the same thing, as the "first object" that moves - has to be created by the first cause. Further, the first cause necessarily gives the first object (the universe per se) movement. The first mover then is not the first mover if it is contingent. The first mover must thus be the act of creation, which is the movement inititated by the first cause.

Ok, much better. You said that "I posited that the free action of the intellect could not be subject to material phenomenon." - Post #91. Subject = caused by. So you actually don't agree with that statement?

The free action of the intellect is subject to material phenomenon only insofar that it is given objects by the senses to work with. It is not, however, composed of material phenomenon.

Please refer me to a post #.

It would have to be the reply previous to that last one. Sorry, but I'm not doing your legwork for you.

Cloud_Walker

19-02-2005, 11:02 PM

One thing, Oberon: I can use the word "know" any way I want. All you have to do is accept the definition. I'm not trying to support any argument by saying this, I just want you to be aware that language evolves.

No, I'm trying to explain why the term "know" was never meant to be followed "with absolute certainty" because you can never know anything with absolute certainty.

Right. So, what we do "know", then, must be opinion, or a probability. Don't try to say that we should discard this fact of knowledge because you don't like it.

I don't mean the universe can't exist in one way or another. I do mean you can't know (capital "K" or not) so what's the point in asking? Might as well ask for the final digit of Pi.

*sigh* I am entertaining the idea in my head, Oberon. I accept it because it makes sense, and explains the theoretical ability of subatomic particles to travel back in time (see Feynman diagrams). Yes, I know I can never observe the universe in this way to confirm my belief. This is just like you entertaining the idea that 200+200=400 in your head. Do you ever observe 200+200=400? Of course not. But it makes sense.

You probably don't support them because obviously you don't grasp them correctly. Nothing can be "partially" inside the universe. In addition, I told you that the first cause and first mover have to be the same thing, as the "first object" that moves - has to be created by the first cause. Further, the first cause necessarily gives the first object (the universe per se) movement. The first mover then is not the first mover if it is contingent. The first mover must thus be the act of creation, which is the movement inititated by the first cause.

I am tired of this.

From A Dictionary of Philosophy, Revised Second Edition, by Antony Flew.

First Cause. The second of the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas, an argument to a "a First Efficient Cause, to which everyone gives the name 'God'." The adjective 'efficient' is there to show that Aquinas is concerned with the third of the four kinds distinguished in Aristotle's doctrine of four causes. Such efficient causes are always expected to be substantial agents rather than mere events.
The premise of this second way is that "In the observable world we discover an order of efficient causes, but no case is found or ever could be found, of something efficiently causing itself." It is, however, Aquinas urges, "impossible to go on forever in a series of efficient causes... if the series goes on forever, then there will be no first efficient cause; and so there will be no final effect and no intermediate efficient cause, which is obviously false."
To understand this argument we have to realize two things. First, here, as elsewhere in the Five Ways, the aim is to prove, not a first initiation "in the beginning", but the continuing existence of the Creator as the sustaining cause of the Universe. It would therefore miss the point to object that nothing has been said to show that these series of efficient causes could not go back indefinitely in time. Aquinas himself elsewhere argued that it is perfectly conceivable that the Universe might have had no beginning. So he is not arguing, as often is thought, that everything must have a cause, that this series could not go back indefinitely in time, and hence that there must have been an uncaused First Cause; an argument in which the proposed conclusion actually contradicts the first premise. Yet it remains hard to see that Aquinas is not arguing, in a different by equally self-contradictory way, that all efficient causes require other efficient sustaining causes, and that if there are to be - as there are - efficient causes, then there must be at least one efficient sustaining cause that does not require an efficient sustaining cause or, which amounts to the same thing, that is itself its own such cause (causa sui).
The second thing to recognize is the background of a rather astrological element in Aristotle's physics. Aquinas followed Aristotle in believing that heavenly bodies, and in particular the sun, are very much more than necessary conditions for, for instance, the production of children by parents here on earth. It is these heavenly bodies that by their presence or absence cause "the phases of generation and corruption of bodies here on earth". The consequence is that "whatever begets here below, reproduces its kind as an instrument of a heavenly body." It is this sort of continuing supportive activity that everything in the Universe all the time requires, and that, Aquinas is arguing, is all the time provided by his First Cause "to which everyone gives the name 'God'".

First Mover. The origin of all motion in the Universe, an origin that is itself unmoved. The idea was introduced by Aristotle and developed by philosopher-theologians in all the three great traditions of Mosaic theism - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It provides the first, and he himself thought the most obvious, of the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. The premise is that there is, in a broader than our now more usual sense, motion in the Universe. So, Aquinas urges, "everything which is in motion is moved by something else. But this cannot go on forever: because if it did there would be no First Mover, and consequently no other mover at all, since second movers do not move except when move by a First Mover, just as a stick does not move anything except when moved by a hand. And so we must reach a First Mover which is not moved by anything: and this all men think of as God."
To understand this argument, though not necessarily to accept it, two points must be appreciated. First, here, as elsewhere in the Five Ways, the aim is to prove not initiation by a Creator, "in the beginning", but the continuing existence of that Creator as the sustaining cause of the Universe. Second, Aquinas is the there taking for granted one of the fundamentals of Aristotelian physics. Aristotle and his followers required explanations, not only for every initiation of change, but also for all continuations of it; whereas Newton's First Law of Motion states that a body will, unless it is subject to some imporessed force, either remain at rest or continue in uniform motion in a straight line. Aquinas thus say motion not as intrinsic to but as impressed upon the Universe, and sustained by an outside Force. His choice of example is significant: if a man is waving a stick the stick stops moving when he stops waving it, whereas an arrow shot from a bow continues towards its target after the archer's work is done. (Aristotelians laboured to explain this second sort of phenomenon by appealing to putative continuing pressures in and from the surrounding air.)
From the time in the 1400s when these Aristotelian ideas first began seriously to be challenged, farseeing people on both sides of the dispute appreciated that their abandonment would encourage the rejection of the theist notion of a Creator as a sustaining cause, in favour of the deist idea that the Universe was wound up "in the beginning", and then left to run on its own "like clockwork".

The free action of the intellect is subject to material phenomenon only insofar that it is given objects by the senses to work with. It is not, however, composed of material phenomenon.

Ok, I just wanted to clear up the contradiction.

It would have to be the reply previous to that last one. Sorry, but I'm not doing your legwork for you.

Gee thanks. Ok, so, in looking for mention of "scientific proofs" about reasoning or a person using reasoning, I decided to look for the word "proof" or any form of it (prove, proving, proved, etc.). Here is what I have found in posts where you quoted me since the beginning of our second discussion on the third page:

The proof of reasoning is in its action, which allows for our posts.

That, as I already said, is begging the question.

I don't think one could prove much of anything, save by the laws that reason demands.

A very true but completely irrelevant statement.

I'm really not sure what your point is in asking for a proof of this sort.

I already answered that.

Re-read my reply to that. I think I mentioned something about scientific proofs..

And of course that one, where I think you were referring to the statement you made where you begged the question, which I already told you begged the question, so to refer to it again as an answer to anything would be quite weird, which is why I asked you to refer me to a post number. Yet you seem to want your statements to remain clouded. So, to clarify that last quote of yours, please refer me to a post number.

Oberon

19-02-2005, 11:30 PM

One thing, Oberon: I can use the word "know" any way I want. All you have to do is accept the definition. I'm not trying to support any argument by saying this, I just want you to be aware that language evolves.

While it is true that you can use the word "know" in any way that you want to, if you want to make sense to others then there must be a common value for your words.

Right. So, what we do "know", then, must be opinion, or a probability. Don't try to say that we should discard this fact of knowledge because you don't like it.

Again it depends on how you're using the term "know". You can know something because you've verified evidence of something - and you can know something because you feel it is right (that would be opinion). IMO the first way is the proper way to use "know" and the second way isn't - the term "believe" would be better suited. If I'm not sure how the other person is using the term it's always a good thing to ask.

*sigh* I am entertaining the idea in my head, Oberon. I accept it because it makes sense, and explains the theoretical ability of subatomic particles to travel back in time (see Feynman diagrams). Yes, I know I can never observe the universe in this way to confirm my belief. This is just like you entertaining the idea that 200+200=400 in your head. Do you ever observe 200+200=400? Of course not. But it makes sense.

Point taken.

AgeOfAbnegation

20-02-2005, 09:40 PM

From A Dictionary of Philosophy, Revised Second Edition, by Antony Flew.

I'm hesitant from quoting from these survey texts, and more inclined to quote from the texts themselves. While the survey texts offer the argument in its essence, there are key nuances that are usually left out that could be discussed (as I offered to explain how the two could be connected). In addition, the editors add "coles notes" material later on, which IMO, is representative of poor scholarship.

Admittedly, I lost track of the second issue. If you want to follow it up, just present me with a problematic I can start from anew. Thx.

Cloud_Walker

21-02-2005, 02:08 AM

While it is true that you can use the word "know" in any way that you want to, if you want to make sense to others then there must be a common value for your words.

Agreed.

Again it depends on how you're using the term "know". You can know something because you've verified evidence of something - and you can know something because you feel it is right (that would be opinion).

There is another quasi-knowing that comes only from reason, like the 200+200=400.

Admittedly, I lost track of the second issue. If you want to follow it up, just present me with a problematic I can start from anew. Thx.

There is no need. Upon resolution of that contradiction, it appears you actually aren't arguing for the conclusion that I disagreed with.

Oberon

21-02-2005, 09:13 PM

There is another quasi-knowing that comes only from reason, like the 200+200=400.

IMO there's a major qualitative distinction between the reasoning of mathematics leading to knowing 200+200=400, and the reasoning of philosophy leading to "knowing" there must be a prime mover and let's call it God.

AgeOfAbnegation

21-02-2005, 11:15 PM

Oberon

22-02-2005, 12:15 AM

CW's dead on by referring to a priori reasoning found in mathematics - it dawns on a person that 2+2=4. There is no empirical proof necessary - but rather, it is a demonstration making use of reason's own concepts, of its inherent unifiying power. I wouldn't use CW's term of "quasi-knowing", since it still is a secure concept, but it just goes to show you - those who simply stick to empiricism as a means of gauging universals are kicking against the goad.

There is a difference. 2+2=4 because it is defined that way. The only way 2+2 could not equal 4 is if you change the definition of what 2 or 4 or + or = means. A non-mathematical example of this would be to say: all dogs are mammals, puppies are young dogs, therefore all puppies are mammals. This form of reasoning is NOT the same as saying there must be a prime mover outside of the universe, let's call him God.

AgeOfAbnegation

22-02-2005, 12:19 AM

Like that fool Wittgenstein, there are a plethora of people who are obsessed with language. Whatever language you want to describe a given concept, the concept still remains. 2+2 still equals 4, and it doesn't matter what terms you put it in. It's still an a priori concept that "dawns on you". The syllogism you presented has nothing to do with mathematics.

Oberon

22-02-2005, 12:44 AM

AgeOfAbnegation

22-02-2005, 02:33 AM

Oberon

22-02-2005, 03:16 AM

Wasn't ad-hominem. Wittgenstein was a fool, plain and simple. What's remarkable is the fact that he amassed a following last century (I suppose that's akin to Rand somehow). I'm hoping other aspiring philosophers don't fall into the same trap. That also includes taking constructive criticism, which should not be attributed as anger or negativity.

Don't even try to make it out like you were offering constructive criticism. You said "Like that fool Wittgenstein, there are a plethora of people who are obsessed with language" in reference to me - saying I was "like that fool" which is the same as saying I'm "like a fool". If it was an isolated slip I could overlook it as poor word usage on your part but you've also said of me "It's evident that you have a very limited understanding of WoW economy.......I'll forgive your ignorance...I'd say that you will know how to play your toon, probably after you die a few thousand times, learning simple principles the hard way.....You're right, it's not for you. We want people who wish to excel, and succeed in everything..." This pattern of ad hominem attacks, coupled with the attitude your posts infer, can only lead me to the conclusion that you're a deeply disturbed individual with a serious case of megalomania.

AgeOfAbnegation

22-02-2005, 03:19 AM

Yea, that must be it.. I'll go admit myself for proper treatment tommorow :p ^^

Sage the Mage

22-02-2005, 05:48 AM

Blah blah blah, quit *****ing at each other and stick to topic :P Honestly, AoA I think likes Aquinas via his style of arguing.

It's still an a priori concept that "dawns on you". The syllogism you presented has nothing to do with mathematics.
I'd go with math coming from experience, but my Latin sucks so that's probably what you said.

Now, I recall you mentioning that thoughts are outside of the physical universe, yet informed via the physical universe. So, there has to be something connecting the two. However, you can't have things in both places at once, and thus cannot interact between the two. So...yeah.

AgeOfAbnegation

22-02-2005, 07:21 AM

Generally the inconsistency that was presented with the a priori use of mathematics, and the logical syllogism is the fact that syllogisms make use of empirical concepts, whereas a priori mathematics is non synthetic. Of course you can't apply dogs and puppies to math, simply because you introduce an outside concept. Mathematics does not deal with empirical concepts - but that can be confusing to some, since we must apply language to the a priori concept. Still, teh concept has no empirical value.

Dark Knight

23-02-2005, 06:30 AM

Whoa, whoa, this thread is a "comment on religion" in the off topic forum, not a discussion about in game....well, in game anything really, let alone a dispute like this.

Its my duty to help un-hijack this thread for the benefit of anyone still wanting to discuss religion.

I dont want to see any more posts here on the subject of WoW in general, or this arguement specifically - this is not the place, as they say.

I am now going to prune this thread of stuff that shouldn't be here.

Masamunae

23-02-2005, 04:20 PM

I've been trying to get you into critical philosophy for some time now, and I think we're getting closer. Once you read Kant's 3 critiques, you'll be able to fine tune that critical disposition of yours.

Can I have a link to those please?:D

AgeOfAbnegation

23-02-2005, 10:06 PM

This link (http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/) will lead you to the first. Buying your own copies would be the best alternative however.

Oberon

24-02-2005, 12:58 AM

AoA,

Could you explain the basics of Kant's "contradictions in conception"?

AgeOfAbnegation

24-02-2005, 05:56 AM

Give me a more direct reference, and why you find interest in that particular thing.

Oberon

24-02-2005, 09:18 AM

Give me a more direct reference, and why you find interest in that particular thing.

After skimming the Internet this seemed like one of the most relevant tenets of his to the discussions we often have on this forum - particularly the political discussions but this one as well.

AgeOfAbnegation

24-02-2005, 02:10 PM

Thats funny, since in all my reading of Kant and association with others who do, I have yet to come across the term you've selected. Perhaps you can provide some "conceptual background".

Oberon

24-02-2005, 08:04 PM

Thats funny, since in all my reading of Kant and association with others who do, I have yet to come across the term you've selected. Perhaps you can provide some "conceptual background".

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant) states:

There are two types of contradiction that Kant thinks can arise with impermissible maxims. The first type he calls "contradictions in conception." Kant uses the example of a lying promise to illustrate these. His imagined agent has the maxim: "I am going to lie so that someone will lend me money, because I am in need." Kant thinks that universalizing this maxim would lead to a contradiction -- that is, if everybody followed this maxim, and lied whenever they were in need, promises would mean nothing. So it would be contradictory (or irrational) to make a false promise to secure money, since your promise would simply be laughed at. Thus, acting on such a maxim is impermissible, and we have a duty not to make lying promises just to satisfy our needs. Incidentally, Kant believes that any maxim involving lying will lead to a contradiction, thus his infamous commitment to the view that we have a perfect (i.e. inviolable) duty not to lie.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is one reason you believe relying completely on empirical evidence for knowledge is an impermissible maxim. Since not everything can be empirically studied, the universalization of such a maxim would lead to a contradiction - that since not everything can be studied, nothing can be known.

AgeOfAbnegation

24-02-2005, 11:32 PM

Unless I'm mistaken, this is one reason you believe relying completely on empirical evidence for knowledge is an impermissible maxim. Since not everything can be empirically studied, the universalization of such a maxim would lead to a contradiction - that since not everything can be studied, nothing can be known.

To fully understand Kant's texts, and any text for that matter, you must start at the beginning. Here, you've jumped to his discussions on morals. Start at the beginning of his first critique. Your last segment is not Kantian. He did not posit "nothing can be known" - quite the contrary. In fact, Kant's whole project is based on what we "can know", and he is very encouraging in this regard.

Cloud_Walker

25-02-2005, 06:48 AM

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant) states:

There are two types of contradiction that Kant thinks can arise with impermissible maxims. The first type he calls "contradictions in conception." Kant uses the example of a lying promise to illustrate these. His imagined agent has the maxim: "I am going to lie so that someone will lend me money, because I am in need." Kant thinks that universalizing this maxim would lead to a contradiction -- that is, if everybody followed this maxim, and lied whenever they were in need, promises would mean nothing. So it would be contradictory (or irrational) to make a false promise to secure money, since your promise would simply be laughed at. Thus, acting on such a maxim is impermissible, and we have a duty not to make lying promises just to satisfy our needs. Incidentally, Kant believes that any maxim involving lying will lead to a contradiction, thus his infamous commitment to the view that we have a perfect (i.e. inviolable) duty not to lie.

Unless I'm mistaken, this is one reason you believe relying completely on empirical evidence for knowledge is an impermissible maxim. Since not everything can be empirically studied, the universalization of such a maxim would lead to a contradiction - that since not everything can be studied, nothing can be known.

That's basically a specific example of Kant's position on morality/ethics: always act so that your action might be a universal law for all (a maxim). Lying to obtain money would not be a good way to act because it would be useless as a maxim.

About the math thing, mathematics is founded on logic. However, one bit of sense experience is needed to trigger the a priori category of multiplicity, so that we know there is such a thing as numbers/counting. But logic (also a priori) takes all of math from there.

EDIT: I used "quasi-knowing" for a reason, but that would probably require a lengthy discussion. If you want to know why, just ask, but for now I'll just leave it at that.

SpiritWalker

25-02-2005, 09:24 PM

Oh my, did I just miss a 17 page long religion thread :surprise:

Friedrich Nietsche: "God is dead"
God: "Nietsche is dead"

Dementor

28-02-2005, 06:21 PM

Oh my, did I just miss a 17 page long religion thread :surprise:

Friedrich Nietsche: "God is dead"
God: "Nietsche is dead"

Don't worry about it man, AoA has your position covered and it's already way out of your league. Don't weaken your argument by voicing it.

Oberon

03-03-2005, 01:17 AM

Here is an article (http://www.rednova.com/news/space/132303/finding_the_ultimate_theory_of_everything/index.html) relating to existence/origins which I found very interesting.

Andarcel

04-03-2005, 04:55 AM

Don't worry about it man, AoA has your position covered and it's already way out of your league. Don't weaken your argument by voicing it.

Please, just shut up. Being an ass is funny once, maybe twice, but it got stale long ago.

Like that fool Wittgenstein, there are a plethora of people who are obsessed with language. Whatever language you want to describe a given concept, the concept still remains. 2+2 still equals 4, and it doesn't matter what terms you put it in. It's still an a priori concept that "dawns on you". The syllogism you presented has nothing to do with mathematics. That syllogism is not based on empirical evidence, but on the definitions of terms. So is 2+2=4. There is no a priori "truth" in either statement (as near as I can tell, Kant doesn't believe in a priori truth anyway). The conclusion is necessary only for all the terms to remain meaningful. You can call it a linguistic requirement if you want, although that suggests that there might be a language in which the rule of noncontradiction didn't apply, which is false.

All the conclusions of math are written into the definitions. They have no existence outside the head of the mathematician, and thus are neither "revealed" nor "discovered" but only "worked out."

Oberon

04-03-2005, 06:50 AM

That syllogism is not based on empirical evidence, but on the definitions of terms. So is 2+2=4. There is no a priori "truth" in either statement (as near as I can tell, Kant doesn't believe in a priori truth anyway). The conclusion is necessary only for all the terms to remain meaningful. You can call it a linguistic requirement if you want, although that suggests that there might be a language in which the rule of noncontradiction didn't apply, which is false.

All the conclusions of math are written into the definitions. They have no existence outside the head of the mathematician, and thus are neither "revealed" nor "discovered" but only "worked out."

Thanks for the post! Finally someone who understands what I was trying to say.

Cloud_Walker

04-03-2005, 06:57 AM

There is no a priori "truth" in either statement (as near as I can tell, Kant doesn't believe in a priori truth anyway)

I would assume that an a priori truth would be a truth found in a priori categories. In such a case, 2+2=4 would be an a priori truth, but that unfortunately doesn't really say anything else about it. Might as well call it the result of an a priori process and nothing more.

Of course, what I just said hinges on what the term "a priori truth" means, which I don't know for sure. If you mean absolute truth, then I agree there is none.

EDIT: Ob, thank you for that article. It doesn't really pertain to philosophy (other than possibly the logical credibility or relevance of the string theory), but I never really knew what string theory says and was looking for something like that.

AgeOfAbnegation

06-03-2005, 04:39 AM

That syllogism is not based on empirical evidence, but on the definitions of terms. So is 2+2=4. There is no a priori "truth" in either statement (as near as I can tell, Kant doesn't believe in a priori truth anyway).

I just finished a thesis on Kant's conception of truth by means of a priori reasoning, and I have a plethora of textual references should you care to bring it up on MSN. As regards the definition of terms, it is made possible by an "a priori" structure.

All the conclusions of math are written into the definitions. They have no existence outside the head of the mathematician, and thus are neither "revealed" nor "discovered" but only "worked out."

They are worked out by means of a method, which allows for that forumula. The way they may be discovered is in the fact that they are not created. Working out a math problem is not creating both problematic and conclusion - but rather applying empirical units of measurement to an a priori structure that allows for the forumula to continue onward to its conclusion. Hence, the concept of 1+1 = 2 is not an artifice of the imagination, but "fits", when units of measurement are applied.

P.S. CW - It always amuses me when atheists and nihilists for instance say "there is no absolute truth". By saying that, they would assert an absolute. Something to chew on.

Cloud_Walker

06-03-2005, 04:53 AM

P.S. CW - It always amuses me when atheists and nihilists for instance say "there is no absolute truth". By saying that, they would assert an absolute. Something to chew on.

I'm sorry, there is one.

Andarcel

06-03-2005, 05:58 AM

I just finished a thesis on Kant's conception of truth by means of a priori reasoning, and I have a plethora of textual references should you care to bring it up on MSN. As regards the definition of terms, it is made possible by an "a priori" structure. I do not have the time to read all of Kant, so I have to make do with the basics. Beyond that, I simply go by what the Kant experts tell me.

They are worked out by means of a method, which allows for that forumula. The way they may be discovered is in the fact that they are not created. Working out a math problem is not creating both problematic and conclusion - but rather applying empirical units of measurement to an a priori structure that allows for the forumula to continue onward to its conclusion. Hence, the concept of 1+1 = 2 is not an artifice of the imagination, but "fits", when units of measurement are applied. A distinction without a difference. Of course there are ground rules for logical coherence and of course they are a priori. That still does not mean the rule has any bearing on anything other than the mental activity of the arithmetician. The conclusion still exists only in his head. The best that can be said is that any arithmetician must arrive at the same result, yet that does not give the result any link to an external reality.

It always amuses me when atheists and nihilists for instance say "there is no absolute truth". By saying that, they would assert an absolute. Something to chew on. The assertion that there is no absolute truth is not a religious position.

I would be interested to see what you regard as an absolute truth, and the argument for it.

AgeOfAbnegation

06-03-2005, 02:58 PM

That still does not mean the rule has any bearing on anything other than the mental activity of the arithmetician. The conclusion still exists only in his head. The best that can be said is that any arithmetician must arrive at the same result, yet that does not give the result any link to an external reality.

Thats because a priori is not representative of "external reality", but rather is woven into the fabric of the "working out" process. Yes its in his head, but the way he got there, was made possible by a priori concepts we all must make use of.

The assertion that there is no absolute truth is not a religious position.

I would be interested to see what you regard as an absolute truth, and the argument for it.

I used that as an example, merely indicating the never-never land that is scepticism.

Lazzmodai

09-03-2005, 04:29 AM

hehe and haha. Is AoA still around?

Still around, and still waxing philosophical. I love it!! :)

I think a lot of us have taken an extended forum break because of the actual release of this blessed, cursed game we've been after for so damned long.

Anyways, good to see some things don't change :D

AgeOfAbnegation

09-03-2005, 06:50 AM

Yep, thats very true. Nowadays, instead of heading to the OTF to thresh it out, it's all about kill X mob and get Y. Same thing as OTF, just a different format lol.

HR_Hellfire

12-03-2005, 07:06 AM

That's lame, really. It's your own responsibility to stand up and make an effort to learn the truth on your own. Perhaps heavy drinking impedes this.

Bah, rest of this is the painful back and forth 'mind expanding' crap I try to avoid, I'll stick to the hit on my ancient remark.

'..make an effort to learn the truth on my own.'

Ok. I stated quite clearly the truth as I see it. The world is a joke. I worked at a Christian camp, even called myself Christian for a time while I was there. Then guess what happend? I came back into the real world. The one where I'm a 16 year old who's oppinion is taken with about the same worth as the phrase 'f*** the police' tagged on a bus shelter. The same world where amazingly enough a good percentage of the camp staff smoke weed, drink and have pre-marrital sex. The same world where I go to school with other kids who claim to have faith before going home and drinking themselves to sleep every night. I came back to reality, and that time at the camp just seemed like a sick joke. I believe in God, I just don't care. As for religion, its a scam. Truth is a joke too.. but I think that was already covered in a thread.

AgeOfAbnegation

12-03-2005, 10:11 AM

The world is a joke.

What does this mean?

I worked at a Christian camp, even called myself Christian for a time while I was there. Then guess what happend? I came back into the real world. The one where I'm a 16 year old who's oppinion is taken with about the same worth as the phrase 'f*** the police' tagged on a bus shelter. The same world where amazingly enough a good percentage of the camp staff smoke weed, drink and have pre-marrital sex. The same world where I go to school with other kids who claim to have faith before going home and drinking themselves to sleep every night. I came back to reality, and that time at the camp just seemed like a sick joke. I believe in God, I just don't care. As for religion, its a scam. Truth is a joke too.. but I think that was already covered in a thread.

Forgive me, but projecting your own insect experience onto the universe as a whole is one of the dumbest mistakes contemporary mankind is in the habit of making.

As regards to your experience at the "christian camp", no human being can really fulfill the image of God, and certainly not the lukewarm church of the modern age. In all of that, objective reality doesnt change. Your ascription to the "truth as you see it" to "truth" is your perennial stumbling block.

Oberon

12-03-2005, 11:55 AM

Forgive me, but projecting your own insect experience onto the universe as a whole is one of the dumbest mistakes contemporary mankind is in the habit of making.

Dude you have got to be the most arrogant geek I've met online which is really saying something. Forget the whole EV fracas and all the people you screwed switching servers because the Horde didn't have the "noble ideals" and "pristine aesthetics" that you associate with yourself. It's one thing to insult people who volunteer to, for whatever reason, be under your leadership. It's another to insinuate that HR_Hellfire is nothing more than an insect. Am I the only one who smells the crap you've been dishing out? You use a lot of big words but you never really say anything. Stop belittling everyone who disagrees with you. Learn to respect the opinions of others. And for God's sake get a little humility.

AgeOfAbnegation

12-03-2005, 05:16 PM

It's another to insinuate that HR_Hellfire is nothing more than an insect. Am I the only one who smells the crap you've been dishing out? You use a lot of big words but you never really say anything. Stop belittling everyone who disagrees with you. Learn to respect the opinions of others. And for God's sake get a little humility.

The "insect" reference is applied to all people, and is a reference to the very small scope our own lives have, compared to the bigger picture. If he was insulted by that, I would have to be as well.

As for the other stuff you mentioned, I'm getting very tired of seeing your troll posts popping up in varied areas around the site trashing my guild. You're in no position to do such a thing. You've popped up on admin radar before about harassment, and people have been banned for much less. I hope you keep that in mind.

Dark Knight

12-03-2005, 07:58 PM

Whilst you are all busy with your noses in theasauruseseses, and things are getting very heated

"insect"
"arrogant geek"
(etc)

which to a point is all well and good, if you PHD's cant decide whether or why 2+2=4 ;), seeing the constant references to AoA's guild pop up everywhere is tiresome and basically constitutes trolling.

e.g the post above, http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=326536, and several others.

(I think I tried PM'ing you before Oberon, but you had them turned off, hence public post).

You've had more than your 2 cents on the subject of making your feelings of AoA and his guild known, and enough is enough.

If I get another report about this kind of crap, I'm not going to be amused, because its simply tiresome now.
-----

Okay... (@everyone) please continue pwning each other verbally about Kant and stuff, but keep it on topic and not too personal?

If you cant do that; this thread and others like it cannot continue.

Oberon

12-03-2005, 08:20 PM

which to a point is all well and good, if you PHD's cant decide whether or why 2+2=4 ;), seeing the constant references to AoA's guild pop up everywhere is tiresome and basically constitutes trolling.

e.g the post above, http://www.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=326536, and several others.

(I think I tried PM'ing you before Oberon, but you had them turned off, hence public post).

You've had more than your 2 cents on the subject of making your feelings of AoA and his guild known, and enough is enough.

If I get another report about this kind of crap, I'm not going to be amused, because its simply tiresome now.

I have sent multiple PM's to the staff here asking why I am unable to receive PM's. I do have the option to receive PM's checked and to my knowledge there's nothing else I can do. I've even e-mailed this forum's support but have gotten no reply. As for the "trolling", AoA is the one who has the habbit of flaming others, myself included, yet for some reason you guys ignore that. He apparently has the right to commit libel on these forums and I (and anyone else) do not have the right to defend myself from it (doing so apparently constitutes "trolling"). If you want to ban me go ahead. Your staff can't or won't fix simple things like PM's for members - even those who pay out of their pocket to support you - meanwhile for whatever reason you show favoritism to him and hostility to me. I will say this, if you delete this post and/or ban me, I will cancel my subscription to this forum and report "elly" to paypal for fraud.

Dark Knight

12-03-2005, 08:37 PM

I have sent multiple PM's to the staff here asking why I am unable to receive PM's. I do have the option to receive PM's checked and to my knowledge there's nothing else I can do. I've even e-mailed this forum's support but have gotten no reply. As for the "trolling", AoA is the one who has the habbit of flaming others, myself included, yet for some reason you guys ignore that. He apparently has the right to commit libel on these forums and I (and anyone else) do not have the right to defend myself from it. If you want to ban me go ahead. Your staff can't or won't fix simple things like PM's for members - even those who pay out of their pocket to support you - meanwhile for whatever reason you show favoritism to him and hostility to me. I will say this, if you delete this post and/or ban me, I will cancel my subscription to this forum and report "elly" to paypal for fraud.

Have you reported a post from AoA? Have you ever contacted me about anything, including PMs failing to work?

I've seen various links with you making a nuiscance of yourself RE that guild, but no one has given me links upon which to act regarding AoA.

Even then I fail to see what Exitium Vitae has to do with a comment on religion?

I will investigate your PM's now, so that you can justify to me your standpoint.

(I'm trying to ignore your last sentence as it is the only way I can take your post seriously.)

EDIT: There were multiple users with the name Oberon. Situation has now been amended and you should be able to send PMs. If so I will anticipate the links to libel shortly.

Oberon

12-03-2005, 09:16 PM

Have you reported a post from AoA? Have you ever contacted me about anything, including PMs failing to work?

I have not reported a post from AoA (most have been deleted) but will do so now, starting with his flame to HR_Hellfire. I will keep an eye out and report any other posts of his I find offensive.

I've seen various links with you making a nuiscance of yourself RE that guild, but no one has given me links upon which to act regarding AoA.

I just sent you a detailed account including screenshots.

AgeOfAbnegation

12-03-2005, 10:26 PM

/Lol. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Oops. O.o - someone get a fire hose ^^.

AgeOfAbnegation

13-03-2005, 12:47 AM

In all seriousness Oberon, I don't believe you have the maturity requisite to continue inhabiting these forums. I was amused at your comment to Xaf, whom you flipped out on for a harmlessly silly remark, among the plethora of other vein-busting coniption fits you've exhibited in your relatively short (albeit prolific) time on this site. You mentioned that you escaped the other forums to come to a more civilized venue, but TBA, any project of brining that trash over here in the form of an inflammitory poster will be quickly snuffed out around here. We've been patient with your hair-trigger reactions, and have attempted to give you leeway in the face of a cavalcade of propganda posts and threads, but as many of us are aware, there's only so much a person can do before pulling the plug. We've had mild altercations before - it happens time to time, especially with younger members, but certainly not with a grown adult such as yourself. Indeed, there are times when you just have to pull the plug. I dare say this is one of those times.

As for the "trolling", AoA is the one who has the habbit of flaming others, myself included, yet for some reason you guys ignore that.

Thinking before speaking is an appropriate skill for living that one usually learns at a young age, hopefully sometime before a person hits their teens. I have been a member here for over a year now, and have seen troublemakers come and go like the wind - you being no exception. The OTF presents a unique venue whereby a poster has the option of presenting his/her argument, and if confronted by opposing views, has the option of defending that.

Though things get heated from time to time, as many long time members here will attest to, nothing has degenerated to the extent that there has been a mass fallout, or disaster. And believe me, the small sparks you've seen thus far is nothing to the firestorms we've been through on issues like abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, religion, politics, etc. Sometimes I'm a bit forceful with posters to attempt to kick them off their saddle, but thats a part of the game here. I've made "friends" here, even with many detractors I've traditionally had, most notably last summer. There's no true hatred or disrespect for anyone here, save for your the continual gasoline you pour on a small campfire that should have been beer-pissed out long ago. To this date, we have not had a poster here who has taken such a fanatical sensitivity to posts. Do you come here and expect to upset our culture here? Not going to happen.

Let me present you with a proper definition of "trolling". Trolling is not presenting a strong disagreement in reply to a post, which I do on occasion. Trolling is creating new threads and posts which seek to insinuate drama. As was pointed out to you - you're in the habit of mudslinging. As many, many people have told me, in EV and otherwise, you're a very bitter person. Since that's part of your nature at this time, I really don't see any other cure to this, save for your permanent removal. However, that is not up to me, but we are thankful to be under the auspices of a just and forthright management dynamic.

If you want to ban me go ahead. Your staff can't or won't fix simple things like PM's for members - even those who pay out of their pocket to support you - meanwhile for whatever reason you show favoritism to him and hostility to me. I will say this, if you delete this post and/or ban me, I will cancel my subscription to this forum and report "elly" to paypal for fraud.

I truly, truly hope you were joking. As I've brought up in the context of various arguments, you seem to have trouble creating your own reality, and actually believing it to have objective relevance. Frankly, people like you are dangerous.

Oberon

13-03-2005, 01:15 AM

AoA,

Why is it everything you say comes off as snobbish? Yes you've been here longer than myself - but six months isn't enough to warrant such an attitude.

AgeOfAbnegation

13-03-2005, 01:23 AM

Oberon, I am simply not interested in conversing with you - at all. Please respect that. We have asked you several times, had your access to my forums revoked, and still you spammed propoganda. That is what is of relevance here, not how you perceive my character.

Sage the Mage

13-03-2005, 06:57 AM

Ahem...hic a doo la!

AoA's response is to always read Kant, so I challenge AoA to post core concepts in a layman readable fashion. Then we can go from there.
/waits for the "I WILL NOT HOLD YOUR HAND!" response.

AgeOfAbnegation

13-03-2005, 08:31 AM

I actually wish I could ask you to read something else, but Kant is the first step you have to take before we can discuss other things it would seem.

ScytheNoire

13-03-2005, 01:58 PM

huh?

what's going on in here?

Kant? learn to spell, it's Can't
jeesh :D

all you need to know about religion:

1) used to control masses
2) used to give easy answer to hard questions (or the unexplained)
3) used to give hope to the hopeless or those in bad situations
4) gives hope of something better

AgeOfAbnegation

13-03-2005, 04:48 PM

all you need to know about religion:

1) used to control masses
2) used to give easy answer to hard questions (or the unexplained)
3) used to give hope to the hopeless or those in bad situations
4) gives hope of something better

If that's "all we need to know", I dare say we can forget about all further discussion, as to "think" on the matter would be useless.

Happlily, I'll offer an open window in place of an otherwise barred door. A religion is a series of patterns that allows one to live their lives better. Everyone has a religion, even sceptics like Scythe. In the end, there is always an object that one "worships". If this is not God, it could be attention, physical pleasure, money, etc. In any case, the patterns of one's life are ordered to somewhere. What's ironic about this is the fact that these sceptics are kicking against the goad and are actually seeking God in all of this activity, yet only need to be enlightened as regards the nature of this object they seek.

As regards "organized religion" *gasp!*, any creed of faith, given through revelation, must merge with human reason and experience, thereby creating a framework, or "system" which will, if adhered to, will dispose the individual to a more complete lived experience of the divine in everyday life. The snare that most moderns maintain, as well as 96.77% (give or take a 2%) forum posters, is that the blunders of X religious as it were show forth the folly of the entire religious apparatus.

neosonichdghg

14-03-2005, 04:09 AM

Hello all!

I read a portion of this thread and I am very impressed by the objectivity and politeness shown by most of you (I didn't quite all of it) I have a rather "different" thought and this seemed like the place to post it.

All righty then...This is a concept from a paper I wrote called "Who Wrote the Laws of Physics" in response to the common argument about evolution. It seems that the general Christian community has the concept of evolution stuck in their minds as the only issue in which they can prove the existence of God. This is interesting to me because this debate is just another arena where the non-Christian scientific community can keep making theories and dance around the questions. However, the people arguing in this arena are thinking too small and far too focused.

On the subject of evolution: Sure, I'll admit - hypothetically, a number of animals could have evolved. I have some major problems with the theory but as of yet I have been unable to debate them with an expert and I am not sure whether a hypothesis has already been concocted to disprove my objections. The theory itself is interesting science fiction and logical on paper - random mutations, coupled with the natural selection that preserves the positive ones, produce entirely new creatures after vast periods of time. All right, that makes...some sense. I have arguments, but neither side can really prove their case absolutely.

HOWEVER - there is an important concept that most people take for granted and therefore don't think to debate. Where did the dimensions come from? No, hold on a minute. I'm not talking about some crazy "alternate reality" mumbo-jumbo. It's become an accepted fact that we live in a universe with four MEASURABLE dimensions, or better yet, axes. There is an x-axis, a y-axis, a z-axis, and what for lack of a better term I'll call the t-axis (time). We travel along the t-axis at a variable rate depending on the speed at which we travel through the other three. We travel through the visible three at various rates based on innumerable factors.

But where did they come from? Who decided that the universe operates along four axes? Who, for that matter, decided that the universe functions along axes at all? Yes, it's all well and good to talk about what began the universe (kind of), but even the "Big Bang" theory implies that the four dimensions already existed. At the beginning of time (0 on the t-axis), an explosion of some kind blew a lot of matter into existence, somehow defying the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy (but that's a different debate that I'm not qualified to deal with) This new matter then traveled outward from the origin (Like on a cartesian plane) along the three visible axes as the recently-formed universe traveled sedately forward in time (along the t-axis into the positives) Obviously, this explanation implies that these four axes were already there.

If God didn't make the axes, what the heck possibly could? No, I'm not implying that lack of proof for negative is proof of positive, but any argument imaginable involves the axes already in existence.

Okay - that's my two cents. Please wait about a day or so before flaming me so you can really understand what I'm saying. It took me about two years to get this much figured out, and don't assume I'm just being a snot and using a lot of big words to say nothing. If you have an intellectual response, I'd be more than happy to hear it.

Oberon

14-03-2005, 04:57 AM

neosonichdghg,

I posted a link earlier that answers some of your questions as best we can with our current understanding of physics. Many of your questions are loaded however. Asking who decided that the universe operates along four axes assumes someone made such a decision. It's a form of anthropomorphism. Also one reason scientists have problems understanding the Big Bang is the laws of physics break down the moments prior to it (moments being millionths of seconds). This usually means our understanding of the phenomenon is simply incomplete (Newton's laws break down on certain levels which is where Einstein's come into play but even his laws break down on certain levels - for example inside a black hole). I'm not saying there is no God. I'm simply saying there's no proof that there has to be a God. IMO belief in the devine is a matter of faith - and if you need proof then what you're looking for isn't faith but rather knowledge. For me, I don't want to believe - I want to know - but that's just me.

ps - Welcome to the forum and this particular debate. Don't fret - we don't bite.

AgeOfAbnegation

14-03-2005, 07:30 AM

But where did they come from? Who decided that the universe operates along four axes? Who, for that matter, decided that the universe functions along axes at all?

Refreshing. Indeed, there must be a prime mover.

Yes, it's all well and good to talk about what began the universe (kind of), but even the "Big Bang" theory implies that the four dimensions already existed.

Another nice point, provided I understand you correctly. Even chaos is structure. The structures must have been in place to allow the "big bang" to take place. These structures were set forth by the prime mover.

If God didn't make the axes, what the heck possibly could?

Lol.. I wonder why more posters can't see this. Well put.

Okay - that's my two cents. Please wait about a day or so before flaming me so you can really understand what I'm saying. It took me about two years to get this much figured out, and don't assume I'm just being a snot and using a lot of big words to say nothing. If you have an intellectual response, I'd be more than happy to hear it.

Tell us more of your ponderings.

Oberon

14-03-2005, 09:14 AM

I don't believe in using 18th century philosophy to fill in the gaps of 21st century astrophysics but that's the crux of our disagreement in this debate I believe.

Cloud_Walker

14-03-2005, 09:15 AM

Refreshing. Indeed, there must be a prime mover.

Existence was never caused or created (or "moved"). To deny that is an absurdity.

Another nice point, provided I understand you correctly. Even chaos is structure. The structures must have been in place to allow the "big bang" to take place. These structures were set forth by the prime mover.

Anything operating in the same "structure" as that which it creates is the same thing as the universe. It would be no different from the creation of smoke and ash from wood and fire (that is, a creator creating something, each governed by the laws that allow both of them to exist).

In other words, what kind of structure can there be outside of that which contains all of spacetime, i.e., the universe?

A completely unknowable and inconceivable one that would be quickly diced by Ockham's Razor.

To: neosonichdghg

Our universe is that which contains all of spacetime. All of existence is a part of spacetime, to our forever limited knowledge. Our universe contains all of spacetime, and therefore all of existence. One cannot assert that laws, or axes, or anything exists outside of existence; laws or axes that can be there to govern the creation of that which contains all laws and axes.

Oberon

14-03-2005, 09:21 AM

Well put Cloud_Walker! I've been saying asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. Time as we understand it began with the big bang. There was no before.

neosonichdghg

14-03-2005, 10:43 AM

I am truly impressed at how active you all are. Very admirable. In answer to some posts -

First of all, Cloud_Walker, if existence was never created then how did it get there? It's not such an absurdity to assume that everything comes from somewhere - that's one of the huge leaps forward in scientific understanding since the Dark Ages. What you are suggesting is some sort of alchemy so unbelievable the alchemists never even tried it - something from nothing.

Second, my entire reasoning was contained in spacetime. My question was, "Where did spacetime come from?" You seem to have missed the point entirely. And if you want to use Ockham's Razor in every situation, apply it to that whole "either 12 or 23 or something dimensions" bit. I don't claim to be an expert in the field, but it seems like there has to be a simpler explanation than that.

Third, the entire concept behind my post is that the creator of the universe must have created the structure. Your analogy of the wood and smoke is what I was trying to imply - that the current explanation indicates an event that happened within the framework of the universe. Obviously, it was not creating the universe if it was functioning within it.

Fourth, and this one is for Oberon, I am impressed at your swift and accurate analysis and look forward to matching wits with you in the future. I was, however, not suggesting that the four axes are the defining concept involved. I am saying that they are the simple representation of the three-dimensional space that does obviously exist.

Fifth, and this is for Oberon too, I don't think I need any proof that God exists. I do have faith in Him, and it was from that perspective that I made my reasoning. I was following the modern scientific method - Take what is true as an assumption and build a theory to back it up. The only base assumption that could lead to this theory is that God exists. I just like working out wierd concepts for no real reason other than to bounce them off people, and this one seemed like a good way to argue God's side in the big debate.

Oh, yeah - AoA, the rest of the paper dealt with things like the strong nuclear force, assembly of sub-sub-atomic particles (aka quarks and other wierd stuff), etc. It was all based on the same "where did it come from" concept.

Oberon

14-03-2005, 11:48 AM

I think the ultimate difference between the two sides here as to the question "where did it all come from?" is that some of us are comfortable with "nobody knows" whereas others are willing to take it a step further and say "God". No reasoning can provide absolute proof one way or the other. It's a matter of faith if you're willing to take that extra step.

AgeOfAbnegation

14-03-2005, 03:15 PM

Existence was never caused or created (or "moved"). To deny that is an absurdity.

On the contrary I find the above statement to be representative of the absurd. "Existence" must concern that which is in space and time. A thing is known by means of its opposite, as things can exist, and not exist in the temporal world. Things outside this - call it God or w/e, cannot exist, or not exist - it is beyond such means of measurement. So, "existence" refers to "the world" as it were, which must have been created.

In other words, what kind of structure can there be outside of that which contains all of spacetime, i.e., the universe?

Indeed, there cannot be a structure outside space/time, as I indicated above. You must have misread me earlier. I attempted to say that structures must have been enabled and defined by a creator of sentience to set the platform for something like the big bang to take place.

Just a word to those who are content to resign themselves to scepticism, while a person cannot have mastery of things outside the reach of our knowledge, we can narrow our options down by means of rigorous thought and reasoning. Faith would be the ultimate step, but to deny that which reason brings us would be belligerance and intellectual dishonesty. As such, a turn from faith in an object that reason emphatically reccomends is simply pride.

Cloud_Walker

14-03-2005, 07:37 PM

Just to make sure everyone understands me, I'm talking about the universe as all of existence.

First of all, Cloud_Walker, if existence was never created then how did it get there?

If it was never created, there is no "getting there." It is always "there."

It's not such an absurdity to assume that everything comes from somewhere - that's one of the huge leaps forward in scientific understanding since the Dark Ages.

It is a huge mistake in understanding. Everything is not everything unless it includes that "somewhere."

"What is there outside of everything?" <--That statement is conveying an idea that is simple enough to understand, but impossible to actually think or talk about. There is no "is" outside of all that is. There is existence. To say there is nothing is to deny the meaning of the word; "nothing" cannot be. All of our thoughts come from and address that which exists and are not capable of even comprehending what would be the opposite of existence. There is no opposite to existence simply because it is impossible to think of one.

What you are suggesting is some sort of alchemy so unbelievable the alchemists never even tried it - something from nothing.

Actually, I'm suggesting the opposite: that nothing comes from nothing, and something always is.

Second, my entire reasoning was contained in spacetime. My question was, "Where did spacetime come from?" You seem to have missed the point entirely. And if you want to use Ockham's Razor in every situation, apply it to that whole "either 12 or 23 or something dimensions" bit. I don't claim to be an expert in the field, but it seems like there has to be a simpler explanation than that.

You cannot use Ockham's Razor on the only explanation, based on the feeling you have that there should be something simpler.

Third, the entire concept behind my post is that the creator of the universe must have created the structure. Your analogy of the wood and smoke is what I was trying to imply - that the current explanation indicates an event that happened within the framework of the universe. Obviously, it was not creating the universe if it was functioning within it.

Yes, if a creator exists, it exists in the same framework as the rest of existence. Such a creator would be no more magnificent or godly than me as a creator of these words, or a house, or a delicious pizza.

"Existence" must concern that which is in space and time.

Existence is spacetime. If spacetime exists, then it is part of existence. Even to name something or call it "it," you categorize it as existing, and therefore a part of existence. Because we must have a subject of our thoughts, something we must at least refer to as "it," we cannot ever conceive of an opposite to existence, i.e., "nothing" or "non-existence."

Or you could assume you can and analyze it afterwards: "the opposite of existence is nothing. Therefore, nothing is the opposite of existence. Existence has no opposite."

as things can exist, and not exist in the temporal world.

You are focusing on local nothingness. Sure, I can burn my table and my table as that which I thought when I say "my table" will cease to exist, but existence as a whole never changes. The distribution of that which we find in all of existence may change, but existence as a whole still remains. We cannot create or destroy, we can only change (even the assertion that we can change things can be challenged, but that's another argument).

I attempted to say that structures must have been enabled and defined by a creator of sentience to set the platform for something like the big bang to take place.

It is not possible for an event (this includes a creation event) to take place outside of time. Let me quote from another site, since I can't put the argument in any better words:

The argument that God is extratemporal is quite innovative, but it suffers a few major flaws. One is that actions require temporality: if you want to do something, you need time to do it in. The Big Bang theory posits that the Universe began with a singularity: a point of infinite mass and zero volume. Everything, ever, was crammed into it, literally: all time and all space were in it.

Now, this screws the idea of a time up a lot. Time would not exist outside the singularity, and because the singularity contained all matter and space, there was no time. Supposing you could stand on top of the singularity before it went bang, you could wait forever, and nothing would happen: events require time to happen.

The time from the universe being a singularity to the big bang would thus be infinite.

Therefore, since the big bang has happened, the singularity must have existed for an infinite time before that.

Therefore, the universe is eternal and uncaused, and we don't need to cut anyone with Ockham's Razor.

It can also be defeated by noting that you assume the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe instead of it just being part of the structure of spacetime, because, after all, it is a point in time.

Dementor

14-03-2005, 08:17 PM

Existence was never caused or created (or "moved"). To deny that is an absurdity.

Ha! I love this guy!

"I know everthing. To deny that is an absurdity."

Are you related to Spirit Walker somehow?

AgeOfAbnegation

14-03-2005, 09:45 PM

Just to make sure everyone understands me, I'm talking about the universe as all of existence.

This is your folly from the getgo. You deny things like "desire" and "love" that cannot be measured. They are not part of space/time, but are a priori concepts that speak of that which is beyond us.

If it was never created, there is no "getting there." It is always "there."

Silly, foolish sentance. I posted my reply to the same thing on the other thread, and as such, I'll direct you over there.

Oberon

14-03-2005, 10:28 PM

This is your folly from the getgo. You deny things like "desire" and "love" that cannot be measured. They are not part of space/time, but are a priori concepts that speak of that which is beyond us.

To quote my favorite scientists, the Cosmos is all that is, ever was, or ever will be. That includes emotions like desire and love - which exist in the minds of those who experience it - and hence are a part of space/time. One quick clarification, please define "a priori" so we have a common reference because you apply that term in ways some wouldn't.

Silly, foolish sentance.

:mad:

Cloud_Walker

14-03-2005, 10:36 PM

Ha! I love this guy!

"I know everthing. To deny that is an absurdity."

Are you related to Spirit Walker somehow?

There's no need for insults. What I said was simple logic.

This is your folly from the getgo. You deny things like "desire" and "love" that cannot be measured. They are not part of space/time, but are a priori concepts that speak of that which is beyond us.

And you for some reason draw the conclusion that desire and love exist outside of spacetime because they cannot be measure? I hate to burst your bubble, but spacetime is not defined as that which man can measure. It is defined as the framework we impose on existence. This means ALL of existence, which includes desire and love.

AgeOfAbnegation

14-03-2005, 10:38 PM

To quote my favorite scientists, the Cosmos is all that is, ever was, or ever will be. That includes emotions like desire and love - which exist in the minds of those who experience it - and hence are a part of space/time. One quick clarification, please define "a priori" so we have a common reference because you apply that term in ways some wouldn't.

These scientists should be true to their discipline then, in knowing that they can't use their tools to master the entire cosmos. The sciences betray themselves when they attempt to go beyond the objects of their rightful inquiry. Love is not an emotion BTW, it's a choice. I dare say those who fail in matters of love are those who too quickly forget that.

A Priori means prior to experience. Think of that in relation to desire. Without a desire of some sort, nobody would post on these forums, nor do anything for that matter. That includes even the desire to preserve one's life.

AgeOfAbnegation

14-03-2005, 10:40 PM

And you for some reason draw the conclusion that desire and love exist outside of spacetime because they cannot be measure? I hate to burst your bubble, but spacetime is not defined as that which man can measure. It is defined as the framework we impose on existence. This means ALL of existence, which includes desire and love.

Let's first go back to the argument I directed you to. You believe that the world is eternal. I say that cannot ever be - by ANY stretch of the imagination. What have you in reply to what I posted on that?

Oberon

14-03-2005, 10:57 PM

These scientists should be true to their discipline then, in knowing that they can't use their tools to master the entire cosmos. The sciences betray themselves when they attempt to go beyond the objects of their rightful inquiry.

I don't think Sagan was out to "master the entire cosmos".

Love is not an emotion BTW, it's a choice. I dare say those who fail in matters of love are those who too quickly forget that.

I was using "love" in a general since - like I love WoW or I love my mother. In a romantic sense, as in Smithers loves Mr Burns, it is to some extent a choice, but it's more complicated than that. For example, I love my fellow man, you included, because I value humanity. I might not get along with my fellow man but I strongly support his right to life, freedom and dignity. Is that a choice or is it a function of my conscious? Here we're getting into another tangent dealing with free will.

A Priori means prior to experience. Think of that in relation to desire. Without a desire of some sort, nobody would post on these forums, nor do anything for that matter. That includes even the desire to preserve one's life.

Does a priori include genetic predispositions, one's id, chance?

Cloud_Walker

14-03-2005, 11:09 PM

Let's first go back to the argument I directed you to. You believe that the world is eternal. I say that cannot ever be - by ANY stretch of the imagination. What have you in reply to what I posted on that?

Ok, but, are you going to back that up or just say "no it can't?"

AgeOfAbnegation

14-03-2005, 11:42 PM

I don't think Sagan was out to "master the entire cosmos".

Not like darth vader no, but to master in terms of understanding? It's not just one individual, but a cultural way of thinking we grew up with.

I was using "love" in a general since - like I love WoW or I love my mother. In a romantic sense, as in Smithers loves Mr Burns, it is to some extent a choice, but it's more complicated than that. For example, I love my fellow man, you included, because I value humanity. I might not get along with my fellow man but I strongly support his right to life, freedom and dignity. Is that a choice or is it a function of my conscious? Here we're getting into another tangent dealing with free will.

Sure, infatuation is part of it, as objects of beauty will draw us, but a choice is made on whether we want to take the good with the bad. Love involves responsibility.

Does a priori include genetic predispositions, one's id, chance?

No. That's still part of the world's structure.

HR_Hellfire

15-03-2005, 01:32 AM

What does this mean?

Forgive me, but projecting your own insect experience onto the universe as a whole is one of the dumbest mistakes contemporary mankind is in the habit of making.

As regards to your experience at the "christian camp", no human being can really fulfill the image of God, and certainly not the lukewarm church of the modern age. In all of that, objective reality doesnt change. Your ascription to the "truth as you see it" to "truth" is your perennial stumbling block.

'What does this mean' was pretty much answered by the rest of it. If you had a sense for rye humour you may have picked it up as you picked through it word by word.

As for life experiences being 'insect' yeah, no one can grasp the grand scope of anything. You included (read HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy if you have not). Talk like a human being, reality is nothing more than a what you yourself 'know'. If you hadn't been told that the stars were points of light from distant suns you wouldn't know this. The universe seems a lot smaller when you don't know it exists, and guess what? Knowing its existence barely changes your life at all! So what? Stars hundreds of millions of lightyears away. Big deal, if the world was oblivious to this fact, as it was at one point, it would still go on. The same can be said for other continents, even neighboring countries. Looking at the bigger picture is a phrase for 12 year old kids trying to sound deep. What they fail to grasp is that the majority of that picture has almost nothing to do with them. If the universe is even half as big as we believe that just means 99.99...ect% of existence does not matter to me. As for humanity and religion, its all alike. You know one society you can survive in any society. As for truth being a stumbling block, that leads to my final comment, truth is the same as reality, what we 'know' is, to us, the truth, who can say if we are right or wrong, aside of course for God, who still has yet to appologise :p

Oberon

15-03-2005, 01:51 AM

'What does this mean' was pretty much answered by the rest of it. If you had a sense for rye humour you may have picked it up as you picked through it word by word.

As for life experiences being 'insect' yeah, no one can grasp the grand scope of anything. You included (read HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy if you have not). Talk like a human being, reality is nothing more than a what you yourself 'know'. If you hadn't been told that the stars were points of light from distant suns you wouldn't know this. The universe seems a lot smaller when you don't know it exists, and guess what? Knowing its existence barely changes your life at all! So what? Stars hundreds of millions of lightyears away. Big deal, if the world was oblivious to this fact, as it was at one point, it would still go on. The same can be said for other continents, even neighboring countries. Looking at the bigger picture is a phrase for 12 year old kids trying to sound deep. What they fail to grasp is that the majority of that picture has almost nothing to do with them. If the universe is even half as big as we believe that just means 99.99...ect% of existence does not matter to me. As for humanity and religion, its all alike. You know one society you can survive in any society. As for truth being a stumbling block, that leads to my final comment, truth is the same as reality, what we 'know' is, to us, the truth, who can say if we are right or wrong, aside of course for God, who still has yet to appologise :p

I like this so-called "insect". :D

AgeOfAbnegation

15-03-2005, 05:24 AM

'What does this mean' was pretty much answered by the rest of it. If you had a sense for rye humour you may have picked it up as you picked through it word by word.

I knew what it meant. I wanted you to think about it a bit more, in an attempt to break you out of the scepticism that comes from being scandalized by the harsh reality we call life.

As for life experiences being 'insect' yeah, no one can grasp the grand scope of anything.

Yes, just to clarify, we are, and we are not insects. Thanks for understanding me correctly.

You included (read HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy if you have not). Talk like a human being, reality is nothing more than a what you yourself 'know'.

I also wanted to get you to think about stuff other than one's own personal experience. Im familiar with the reality I live for instance, but I know others have theirs as well (mine does not detract from theirs for instance), and reality is an objective thing I have my own share of, as does anyone. Just be mindful of that.

As for truth being a stumbling block, that leads to my final comment, truth is the same as reality, what we 'know' is, to us, the truth, who can say if we are right or wrong, aside of course for God, who still has yet to appologise :p

By asking God to apologize, you have an innate idea in your mind of right and wrong. Meditate on that for a bit. Then, read the gospel.

Sage the Mage

15-03-2005, 05:55 AM

Gee AoA, that post you made wasn't trying to egg on Hellfire was it?

I posted earlier that God (what could be outside - it is not technical language), could not be dubbed as existing, or not existing - as these terms are used to denote our own conception of reality. Semantics..

To exist and to not exist at the same time requires that logic doesn't need apply outside of the universe.

They are all the same, but appear different to us because our conciousness exists along one - time (e.g. memories and records of experience), and that entity observes the others. Because of the movement along time, we see motion.

Again, memories are within all dimensions. They do take up some sort of space, even if its just an alteration of a particle.

Ceredwynn

17-03-2005, 06:28 AM

Argh! Religion! Such a controversial topic. I see religion as a subject that's full of ambiguity. I'm no Athiest ;) but I'm still in search for the truth whatever that may be :p

HR_Hellfire

20-03-2005, 04:00 AM

By asking God to apologize, you have an innate idea in your mind of right and wrong. Meditate on that for a bit. Then, read the gospel.

I'm a 16 year old male teenager, I'm always right and I know everything. (it was a joke, don't even try to quote and analise it)

(other side of the coin)

No, growing up as an average white boy in a middleclass suburban home I have no concept what is right or wrong. (again a joke, again do not analise)

Ok, now for fun with words. "an innate idea" in my mind of right and wrong. Innate, funny choice of word. Lets have a look-see at possible replacements. Innate: constitutional, deep-seated, elemental, essential, hereditary, inborn, inbred, indigenous, ingrained, inherent, instinctive, intrinsic, intuitive, native, natural, normal, regular, standard, typical, unacquired

Ok, so the first possibility is that you mean I have an instinctive. Idea of right and wrong. No. That makes no sense. Right and wrong are established by the collective and are modified as needed by the individual as they see fit or neccesary. There is no instinctive right and wrong.. NEXT

Second: I have a normal concept of right and wrong. This I can agree with. However there is little to meditate on then.

The final synonym makes little sense with the others. However used in that context I have not aquired a sense of right and wrong. I believe this is quite impossible.

If you could elaborate as to your meaning it would be appreciated.

As for reading the gospel. I've already stated I worked at a Christian camp. We stuffed that crap down the campers throats for dinner.. and before dinner.. and after dinner.. and lunch.. and before bed.. and.. ect. I have read a good amount of it. What I have read I have understood. But that is all it ever was, reading. Like a fantasy novel or some boring school enforce reading. As for how it tires to reality or my sense of right and wrong.. I agree with some of the moral values of scripture, disagree with others.

AgeOfAbnegation

20-03-2005, 05:46 AM

I'm a 16 year old male teenager, I'm always right and I know everything. (it was a joke, don't even try to quote and analise it)

(other side of the coin)

No, growing up as an average white boy in a middleclass suburban home I have no concept what is right or wrong. (again a joke, again do not analise)

LOL, how about a laugh? Twas funny.

Ok, now for fun with words. "an innate idea" in my mind of right and wrong. Innate, funny choice of word. Lets have a look-see at possible replacements. Innate: constitutional, deep-seated, elemental, essential, hereditary, inborn, inbred, indigenous, ingrained, inherent, instinctive, intrinsic, intuitive, native, natural, normal, regular, standard, typical, unacquired

Ok, so the first possibility is that you mean I have an instinctive. Idea of right and wrong. No. That makes no sense. Right and wrong are established by the collective and are modified as needed by the individual as they see fit or neccesary. There is no instinctive right and wrong.. NEXT

I don't believe that right and wrong as you say are simply a creation of the public. There can be cultural norms which modify this idea, but an actual objective morality is inherent.

Second: I have a normal concept of right and wrong. This I can agree with. However there is little to meditate on then.

The final synonym makes little sense with the others. However used in that context I have not aquired a sense of right and wrong. I believe this is quite impossible.

If you could elaborate as to your meaning it would be appreciated.

As for reading the gospel. I've already stated I worked at a Christian camp. We stuffed that crap down the campers throats for dinner.. and before dinner.. and after dinner.. and lunch.. and before bed.. and.. ect. I have read a good amount of it. What I have read I have understood. But that is all it ever was, reading. Like a fantasy novel or some boring school enforce reading. As for how it tires to reality or my sense of right and wrong.. I agree with some of the moral values of scripture, disagree with others.

I probably would have hated it at that camp, and would have given the counsellors hell. I think the first thing you have to come to grips with is the objective and the subjective. Once you realize that values and morality aren't simply created but rather discovered, theres room to move ahead.

Alakon

21-03-2005, 09:16 AM

Wow, heavy stuff dudes.
I myself have no real problems with issues of morality. God is always right, and he left a nifty little book called the bible which helps me decide.
I am one of Jehovah's Witness and am very proud of it.
I would be glad to argue any points you have.
Still I am curious about right and wrong in its various modes of interpretation.
Right and wrong I guess, seems to be decided by everyone but the person involved.
For example, a lady killed her dying mother as a way of protecting her. Although to her, the decision was the right one, because her mother asked it of her. However, the doctors think it was wrong, because it looked bad for them. The public thought it was wrong because it was immoral. The lady's opinion didn't really count because every else thought she was wrong, they didn't empathise and say 'that lady did what was right for her', they didn't think that because the enacter thought it was right, that that negated everyone else's opinion. So the public were right and she was wrong.
So whether something is right or wrong can be decided in two ways,
1) whatever you think it is because that's the only view you'll have to deal with and no-one else can change it.
2) Whatever can be objectively decided empathetically, if that's not a contradiction. In essence, what is right and good for the most people.
In the second method I guess you would tally up how many rghts and wrongs there are.
If 70% of people would rather this happen than that, then it is more right than wrong; therefore it's right, regardless of the smaller percentage that think it's wrong.
Right and wrong can only be expressed as a empathetic thing, I think, for if we excluded all human emotion, all human need and made it entirely objective, I guess there would be no right and wrong. And if there was no right and wrong, there would be no reason for the universe to keep spinning, and if there was, I don't think humans would mean a huge deal.
Just some ramblings of a bored kid in NZ, make of them as you will.

Moliere

24-03-2005, 11:26 PM

Alakon

25-03-2005, 12:06 AM

1) How do you know "God" left the nifty little book? Do you know the history of the Bible and how it was collated? How the early Christians and Roman Church chose the particular books? Committee meetings. Hopefully by majority vote god got his influence heard about which books were important and which could go into the Apocrapha (sp?)

2) Since the Bible is full of contradictions how can you use it for a guide on doing the right thing?

3) What is your belief in god based upon? Faith? Because the Bible says so? Because the world is really complicated so there must be a god?

All very good questions, I shall try to dredge up some reference books.
2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial"
Hmmm, very hard to 'logically' prove that God actually inspired the bible. But (and this sorta goes with que 2) the bible that I use, has so far not proved disapointing or contradictory.
The bible is full of prophecies, and so far every single one of them has been fulfilled, a few are still pending (like the 'end of the world').

So far, archaeological finds have concurred with the bibles writings, and no real evidence has been found to argue against it, if their are, please let me know. From ancient tablets or somesuch that they dug out of the ground, had the same prophetic scriptures, and they were determined to have been written before the event came to pass.

It was collated by several famous bible figures, such as Moses and Solomon.
Genesis: Written by Moses in the wilderness in 1513 b.c.e, covering from the beginning to 1657 b.c.e.
Moses also writ Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, all finished by 1473.
But the thing to remember, is that although Moses and the others writ the books, they were simply the instruments of God. Only God had the knowledge and power to know what has happened and what will.

Now, as for my unwavering belief in God, I will admit that I had been brought up as a Jehovah's witness from an impressionable age, about four; I remember when my parents first started studying.
But I believe in Jehovah, not because my parents have said so, because that usually produces a negative effect, but because so far, I cannot prove it wrong. Everything they teach us in the meetings has a solid base in real life and fact, and those who follow the Bible's principles notice an immediate change in their lives for the better.
Nor would I want to actively try to convince anyone that it's wrong, I enjoy the prospect of everlasting life.

Each of these writers were highly respected men, and at the time that they wrote these books, they were known as very spiritual men. So when they told everyone that their books were God-inspired I guess the faithful must have believed them.

And remember some of these men wrote the book at very different times, yet their belief that the scripture was God-inspired was the same. And the scriptures all work together so perfectly, that even today there are still many cross references and supporting scriptures that you don't immediately pick up on.
The books were all seperate until not too long ago, maybe not even a hundred years ago, some helpful chap combined them into one big book.

You know I just found out something interesting; in the bible, it says that God held council(or court). Isn't that peculiar? Maybe you could help me get to grips with that part.

I don't think I would have answered your questions to your satisfaction (this I know from experience), but I enjoy trying to answer them anyway.
Tell me, if you need further clarification of my arguments.

P.S, when you say the bible is full of contradictions, I think you may be referring to the bible that Catholics use. Very confusing sometimes, I think their Psalms 144:10 says something like" And the LORD said unto my LORD..." apparently God was talking to himself.

HR_Hellfire

25-03-2005, 07:36 AM

Really to me right and wrong are established by the collective. Many morals appear in the bible but much of this was simply repetition of already existing and enforced laws. Killing another human being has always been considered a bad thing, however in war time men become accustomed to killing as a means of survival. The basic need to survive overrules all, inclueding morals. This is simply nature. Although you may think: "that is simply men reverting into animals" in truth it is nothing more than adapation to the environment and situation at hand. Much like living and working on a farm requires you adapt to manual labour and the reality of being dirty as opposed to working in a city where you need to be able to sit around for long hours and be as clean as possible for lack of anything better to do. The first nations people had no concept of land ownership it was a forign ideal introduced to them. Also morals can, as I said, be modified by the individual. A crack wh*re needs to make money some how. She simply adjusts her moral values to allow her to live another day and buy another dose. Me, I drink, morally objectionable to some, to me, just a nice way to relax. Some people have moral standards which are insanely high. They fear to breath heavily lest they offend someone. Some morals are really just things you possibly would do but may not get away with. They have little meaning to you but are enforced by others. Other morals are the kind that matter: your own. The ones that govern your actions and control what you will and will not do and even these can change with time.
Morals are fluid, they are what they are at that moment in time, but a change in circumstance can lead to a change in morals.

Oberon

25-03-2005, 08:09 AM

Those are interesting points you make HR_Hellfire but I doubt you'll find many theists who believe as you do. There's a short dialogue by Plato called the Euthyphro which this reminds me of. In the dialogue, Euthyphro and Socrates have a discussion about what makes something right or wrong. Euthyphro, a theologan, states something is right because the gods want it. Socrates then asks "Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy?" In other words, either what is good ("holy") is such because God says so, or God has no choice but to approve of something because it is good. In the first case, what is "good" becomes an arbitrary concept. The second implies that morality exists independent of God, and it is possible to bypass God and go straight to the source of ethical behavior.

AgeOfAbnegation

25-03-2005, 10:11 AM

Since the Bible is full of contradictions how can you use it for a guide on doing the right thing?

That comment amuses me each time I hear it. Enlighten us.

AgeOfAbnegation

25-03-2005, 10:16 AM

Oberon

25-03-2005, 12:06 PM

Very representative of plato's "demiurge". Aristotle pwnt him later on ^^.

And Galileo pwnt Aristotle's ideas on gravity.

AgeOfAbnegation

25-03-2005, 12:53 PM

And Galileo pwnt Aristotle's ideas on gravity.

A grave mistake made by many is to believe that a person must be fully correct in everything, to be correct in anything. I could easily see many posters here *cough*sage*cough*, holding the view that since he was wrong in one thing, therefore he is falliable, and thus, his metaphysics (as well as his ethics) can be ignored. Though, it is also unique to note that you got this piece of info from watching an hour long episode of Carl Sagan's wonderful cosmos or w/e.

To comment on this however, Aristotle was of the mind (which is intriguing, since so many others here are), that time was infinite. I've already demonstrated before how that cannot be. His infinite time doctrine was a child of his physics, but not his metaphysics. With that in mind, I like to think that his works are "unfinished" :).

Moliere

25-03-2005, 07:35 PM

That comment amuses me each time I hear it. Enlighten us.

For a couple hundred Bible contradictions you can go here:
http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/acalltoheresy.htm

For an examination of Noah's Arc:
http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/noahark.htm
"it would have had to be at least twice the size the Bible claims-just to hold the beetles."

Moliere

25-03-2005, 08:04 PM

2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial"
Hmmm, very hard to 'logically' prove that God actually inspired the bible.

That is a circular argument: god exists because the bible says so and the bible is true because it's the inspired word of god.

The bible is full of prophecies, and so far every single one of them has been fulfilled, a few are still pending (like the 'end of the world').

These prophesies are always written after the fact. This would be the same as me writing a world history book and claiming I prophesized all the events because my research was correct.

So far, archaeological finds have concurred with the bibles writings, and no real evidence has been found to argue against it, if their are, please let me know. From ancient tablets or somesuch that they dug out of the ground, had the same prophetic scriptures, and they were determined to have been written before the event came to pass.

This sounds similar to those who believe Nostradamus, Silvia Brown or John Edwards are really psychic. They're not. They make a bunch of vague guesses that are open for interpretation and claim victory if 1 out of 100 comes true.

It was collated by several famous bible figures, such as Moses and Solomon.
Genesis: Written by Moses in the wilderness in 1513 b.c.e, covering from the beginning to 1657 b.c.e.
Moses also writ Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, all finished by 1473.

Actually the Jews were not very original in their ideas. They were so unoriginal that they ended up stealing most of their "history" from the Babylonian myths. The same is true for Jesus. Everything about the guy is plagiarized from other myths of the time.

Here is something else to consider. The Old Testament was oral tradition for over a thousand years, then it was copied, and recopied and recopied thousands of times. Then it was translated between Hebrew, Greek, Latin and English. Was every person in the oral history godly inspired not to miss anything or expand on the story to make it more dramatic. There is a great example of this with a Jesus story. The same event is told three times and each time the tale grows. Jesus goes to a town and heals some of the people of some of their afflictions, then it's told that he goes to the town and heal some of the people of all their afflictions, and not to be outdone the final telling of the story has him healing everyone of all their afflictions.

I enjoy the prospect of everlasting life.

I don't enjoy the idea of sacrificing my known life and existence on the idea of a possible afterlife. How do you know you're following the right god? Ever seen the Southpark episode with all the Christians in Hell because it turned out "Mormon was the correct answer". Why not Zeus, Thor, Buddhist, or Hindu? Too many choices...someone is going to hell.

Oberon

25-03-2005, 09:54 PM

A grave mistake made by many is to believe that a person must be fully correct in everything, to be correct in anything. I could easily see many posters here *cough*sage*cough*, holding the view that since he was wrong in one thing, therefore he is falliable, and thus, his metaphysics (as well as his ethics) can be ignored. Though, it is also unique to note that you got this piece of info from watching an hour long episode of Carl Sagan's wonderful cosmos or w/e.

It seems I struck a nerve here. First off, I never stated or even implied that one must be correct in everything in order to be correct in anything. In fact, in a recent post on the 'morality of murder' thread (http://www.rpgforums.net/showpost.php?p=3359453&postcount=129) I stated "Just because you can't know everything, that doesn't mean that you know nothing." My jab if you will at Aristotle was in response to your jab of Plato. Don't dish it out if you can take it back. Not only did you have to project misleading views onto me, but you also felt it necessary to insult my intelligence on the matter and to some extent a man you know I admire. As great as Sagan's "Cosmos" series was, contrary to your opinion, it does not represent the sole source of my education. I believe you owe me an apology.

AgeOfAbnegation

25-03-2005, 10:10 PM

For a couple hundred Bible contradictions you can go here:
http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/acalltoheresy.htm

For an examination of Noah's Arc:
http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/noahark.htm
"it would have had to be at least twice the size the Bible claims-just to hold the beetles."

I don't have time to read through the entire article on noah, so if you care to, post what's at stake in the text. On a side note, you should read my posts regarding scepticism (if you've got the time, they are in the back threads).

AgeOfAbnegation

25-03-2005, 10:14 PM

It seems I struck a nerve here. First off, I never stated or even implied that one must be correct in everything in order to be correct in anything. In fact, in a recent post on the 'morality of murder' thread (http://www.rpgforums.net/showpost.php?p=3359453&postcount=129) I stated "Just because you can't know everything, that doesn't mean that you know nothing." My jab if you will at Aristotle was in response to your jab of Plato. Don't dish it out if you can take it back. Not only did you have to project misleading views onto me, but you also felt it necessary to insult my intelligence on the matter and to some extent a man you know I admire. As great as Sagan's "Cosmos" series was, contrary to your opinion, it does not represent the sole source of my education. I believe you owe me an apology.

Yea that's fair. My concern was mainly with forum goers who feel they can simply discard Aristotle on the basis of his immature theory of gravity. I did not intend to mudsling. For the record, I'm of the mind that alot of Aristotle's teachings are universally relevant (even Kant asserted this). Anyway, I do tend to get upset when people bash Aristotle.

Moliere

25-03-2005, 11:07 PM

I don't have time to read through the entire article on noah, so if you care to, post what's at stake in the text. On a side note, you should read my posts regarding scepticism (if you've got the time, they are in the back threads).

To take the bible literally takes quite a trip through fantasy land. Noah's arc is only one of the more extreme examples. Instead of listing everything wrong with Noah (and there are many many problems) I included the lesser know beetle problem: "it would have had to be at least twice the size the Bible claims-just to hold the beetles."

My post wasn't really about Noah, but an attempt to respond to the idea of the bible not having any contradictions. Again, instead of listing the hundreds of conflicts the site does a nice job of quoting them all exactly side by side.

AgeOfAbnegation

26-03-2005, 09:47 PM

To take the bible literally takes quite a trip through fantasy land. Noah's arc is only one of the more extreme examples. Instead of listing everything wrong with Noah (and there are many many problems) I included the lesser know beetle problem: "it would have had to be at least twice the size the Bible claims-just to hold the beetles."

My post wasn't really about Noah, but an attempt to respond to the idea of the bible not having any contradictions. Again, instead of listing the hundreds of conflicts the site does a nice job of quoting them all exactly side by side.

Perhaps not a contradiction per se, but an issue of interpretation. Thats what it boiled down to in every talk I've had thus far with those who posited contradictions in the text.

Alakon

27-03-2005, 11:24 AM

Woah woah woah. Allow me to defend the bible.

I'll take the first contradiction that I found.
"There is no fear in love, but perfect love throws fear outside.."
- First John 4:18
"Have love for the whole association of brothers, be in fear of God.."
- First Peter 2:17

The word fear is the contradiction here I see. Well, taking a page out of your book here, interpretation.
It has been determined by our society that when Jehovah says to fear him, it is more in the way of honoring him, to fear disappointing him, that is why as I think Aoa pointed out, to be careful of taking the bible too literally. It speaks metaphorically as well, and not everything is as you may see it.

As for the Noah thing.
First of all, I don't recall my bible saying that the sea creatures were destroyed; I would find it rather difficult to kill water creatures with more water.
I also saw that to destroy animals, etc etc, was cruel, but why? Jehovah went to an effort to spare the animals by allowing them to propagate. and the animals were made as complements to man, as assets, to be killed for food, or used for material anyway. No-one complained then.
And you have to bear in mind the changing times, God may not have thought the idea was too hot, but it may have been the most effective message.
To obliterate everything, save that which he protects.

And I don't know that insects needed much help, I mean, the water didn't saturate the earth through and through. That's the joy and curse of insects. The bible doesn't say that they were saved. I wouldn't want weevils in my grain stock.

Btw, I don't agree with the Hydro plate thing, the bible says it rained.

As for space, I don't know how much 300 cubits by 50 by 30 is, but I wager that every inch was used for the animals and foodstock.
Considering it was three stories high.
It also said that food distribution was a problem, taking 15 months to do it by hand, but what's wrong with chucking a big bin of feed in. Maybe a bunch of holes in the roofs and you walk along spilling food down it. Maybe they even grew grass in there lol.

Remember, Noah spent a large portion of his life simply planning, building, and preparing this boat, I'm pretty sure that he would have ensured that it would float.

And if it was a real problem, no reason why God couldn't lend a hand, it doesn't say that God didn't send a few angels to help. Or cause manna to appear in vast quantities.

Back to the others.
My version actually says
Job 5:2 "And the foolish one vexation will kill,
And the one easily enticed envying will be put to death".

Ephesians 4:26 "Be wrathful, and yet do not sin, let the sun not set with you in a provoked state"

The scriptures that they have read aare likely to be the popular Catholic versions, which have been edited, which is quite funny because one of the last scriptures directly states not to edit the bible.
Which is why the bible should have remained unedited for all those centuries, knowing that God is watching you copy his book was probably sever incentive. Plus all the religous priests and people eying you.

Errr... My Matthew says "And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Ge.hen'na."

I agree that the Catholic bible has many inconsistencies.
Try searching for Jehovah's Witnesses and inconsistences, I'm sure there must be a few of those, and it would make arguing easier for me.

As for South Park, that sounded quite funny.

(Whew I write a fair bit)