the morality of murder

[Sage the Mage]

experience -
1 a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
2 a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity b : the length of such participation <has 10 years experience in the job>
3 a : the conscious events that make up an individual life b : the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or mankind generally
4 : something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
5 : the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality

So...which definition are we using here?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hurray for logical leaps of faith.


hmm?


Well then, your God can't have a structure.


Universe *is not equal to* God. You remind me of those labcoat geeks on the simpsons..


For one who rips on raffster, you come up with strangely similar stuff :)
So how about you give me a definition?

I don't recall posting an aphorism without explanation. You want me to define experience? Something akin to #4 and 5 on your list..

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Nice post war. I'm too lazy these days to jump in and insect-analyze every last detail, so I'll let you guys boil it down to the common denominator. One thing that struck me however was...

We do not acquire the laws of logic from experience of the universe. Nor are they human concepts; they apply to any thinking being anywhere.

To which Oberon replied..

I suppose that means Plato, Aristotle and Kant did nothing new.

Correct. They did nothing new. No philosopher (unless he's a rhetorician or poet), does new things. Rather, its about discovering what's there, as Andarcel implied. Philosophizing is about discovery, rather than creation. Otherwise, you're philosophizing with the hammer, and that gets you nowhere :p.

[Oberon]

Correct. They did nothing new. No philosopher (unless he's a rhetorician or poet), does new things. Rather, its about discovering what's there, as Andarcel implied. Philosophizing is about discovery, rather than creation. Otherwise, you're philosophizing with the hammer, and that gets you nowhere :p.

Both of you should re-read my original post. Let me save you the effort by reposting it here...

Andarcel:
The universe obeys the laws of logic. It has no reason to; logic is a property of meaning, not matter. Nor can this be explained by saying that we construct the universe so that it obeys the laws of logic.

Oberon:
The "laws of logic" as you call them are human concepts developed from observation and experience within said universe. They are not restrictions we mere humans have placed on the universe which the universe must "obey".

Andarcel is anthropomorphizing the universe, claiming it obeys the laws of logic yet it has no reason to - as though the inanimate universe has will and desire. My point was essentially comparing the "laws of logic" to the laws of science. Gravity existed long before Newton but the "law of gravity" was a concept created and spelled out by Newton. His law in no way restricts gravity, it simply explains gravity based on observation and experience. He did do something new in that he explained a phenominum and aided in our understanding of it.

[Sage the Mage]

I don't recall posting an aphorism without explanation. You want me to define experience? Something akin to #4 and 5 on your list..
Given those, experience is either a memory with an interpretation and/or modifier on the senses.

Universe *is not equal to* God. You remind me of those labcoat geeks on the simpsons..
The problem is that you say we can know what God is not, which means God is definable, which means God must have structure. But you also want God to be eternal.
Plus, you already reference to there being an outside of the universe (if you want a creator God at all), all I do is add more things to the inside of it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The "laws of logic" as you call them are human concepts developed from observation and experience within said universe. They are not restrictions we mere humans have placed on the universe which the universe must "obey".


That's what I had trouble with. Logic is an inherent, objective law. It's not "developed" by humans lol.. That would mean that logic is something we've created, rather than discovered, which is utter bologna.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Given those, experience is either a memory with an interpretation and/or modifier on the senses.


My understanding of "experience" is sentience, and our interaction with things.


The problem is that you say we can know what God is not, which means God is definable, which means God must have structure. But you also want God to be eternal.
Plus, you already reference to there being an outside of the universe (if you want a creator God at all), all I do is add more things to the inside of it.

There must be talk of a "within" and an "outside of" the universe when dealing with this. All we can analyze is that which is within our cosmos. We can't analyze what's outside of it, since that is beyond our senses. When I say that we can know what God is not, we can come to the conclusion that he is beyond formal structures of the cosmos, discovered by speculative reason. When you say that in light of that statement, God must have a structure (and definition) by reference to what he is not, you must be aware of the fact that human thinking comes by means of structures, so it is nigh impossible to speak eloquently of the subject. Suffice it to say, our language pretty much stops at that juncture. What has been established by reason however, is immutible.

[Coltaine]

One nice story that came to my mind while reading. (its true by the way)


One mathmatician wrote a paper about a specific kind of body.
He found many laws what you could do and what you could not with that body. some properties so on... When finished he published a bood of a few houndred pages. He was supposed to be an expert on these bodies. Held lectures...
Until one day someone wrote a 2-3 page paper finding that these bodies don't exist.

Everything he wrote was perfectly logical. But still not relevant because he wrote about something that might have but did not exist.

[Radhil]

God. (just an expression). It's so hard to jump in. Everybody here is saying that has some truth in it. I'm mostly with Cloud Walker on this one.

I've read two pages and my head wants to explode. Is there anywhere a summation of a point here? I can't find it on the first page, and I dread having to walk through 26 pages of this just to figure out how it segued this way.

In mild and naieve response to the last few replies, I'll just say this. God, by definition, is infinite and unknowable. That doesn't mean we can't see his outline by looking at his results.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

One mathmatician wrote a paper about a specific kind of body.
He found many laws what you could do and what you could not with that body. some properties so on... When finished he published a bood of a few houndred pages. He was supposed to be an expert on these bodies. Held lectures...
Until one day someone wrote a 2-3 page paper finding that these bodies don't exist.

Everything he wrote was perfectly logical. But still not relevant because he wrote about something that might have but did not exist.

Cute.. However you're not comparing apples to apples here, not by a long shot. Mathematics deals with concepts, which are applied to objects. As such, the existence of X object is irrelevant. What matters is proper methodology. The problem of the mathematician was the fact that he used the conclusion as a premise.

Regarding the topic of God, we're positing what must be necessary by looking at what we can analyze. We don't start with the object, but end with it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

God, by definition, is infinite and unknowable. That doesn't mean we can't see his outline by looking at his results.

Not a bad way of putting it.

[Oberon]

That's what I had trouble with. Logic is an inherent, objective law. It's not "developed" by humans lol.. That would mean that logic is something we've created, rather than discovered, which is utter bologna.

You seem to have missed my point. Again I suggest you re-read my statement. Logic wasn't created no more than gravity was created. What was created was our laws, or understanding, of logic and law. The "laws" were created, not the subject the "laws" explain.

[Cloud_Walker]

I've read two pages and my head wants to explode. Is there anywhere a summation of a point here? I can't find it on the first page, and I dread having to walk through 26 pages of this just to figure out how it segued this way.

It is centered around a debate about the existence of God, however the arguments bring up many other things that need clarification, such as, currently, logic and experience. It is possible to understand all of this just by thinking hard and looking up a few terms, such as names of different philosophies. AoA was right when he said logic isn't created by us. It is discovered by examining how we think. An aesthetician named Gene Blocker once wrote that philosophers talk about talking, and think about thinking.

I like to delude myself into thinking that these topics aren't so long by putting 30 posts on a page :).

[Sage the Mage]

God, by definition, is infinite and unknowable. That doesn't mean we can't see his outline by looking at his results.
An outline imposes limits which implies a structure.

We can't analyze what's outside of it, since that is beyond our senses. When I say that we can know what God is not, we can come to the conclusion that he is beyond formal structures of the cosmos
So, God is beyond formal structures of the cosmos. Logic is a formal structure of the cosmos. So, God is beyond logic. Therefore, no application of reason can reliably establish anything about God.

My understanding of "experience" is sentience, and our interaction with things.
Again, this still isn't clear.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You seem to have missed my point. Again I suggest you re-read my statement. Logic wasn't created no more than gravity was created. What was created was our laws, or understanding, of logic and law. The "laws" were created, not the subject the "laws" explain.

I don't believe I have erred in my statement. Our understanding of logic is still discovered, rather than created. Hail Kant and Aristotle.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

An outline imposes limits which implies a structure.


So, God is beyond formal structures of the cosmos. Logic is a formal structure of the cosmos. So, God is beyond logic. Therefore, no application of reason can reliably establish anything about God.


Sure, that's fine. You're going to beat your head against the wall however if you keep trying to use an analytic approach to the speculative. Your statement here is correct. However, our application of logic can define possible options. Kant's antinomies of pure reason may be of help here.

[raffster]

So, God is beyond formal structures of the cosmos. Logic is a formal structure of the cosmos. So, God is beyond logic. Therefore, no application of reason can reliably establish anything about God.

Bingo. Failure to see this very simple truth is the reason why so many wars have been fought "in the name of God" as those who *think* understand God *know* God and what *God's will* is.

If those who claim to *know* God can be humble enough to *know* that they really can't *know* God the way they *think* they *know* God then all the chaos that every theistic religion created wouldn't have been necessary.

Humankind will simply live in *respect* and *understanding* because of *humility.*

Didn't the God of Christians die for all mankind to save the world? I believe Christians and all sentient beings ought to learn an example from this very humble *God."

Awesome post Sage.

[Sage the Mage]

However, our application of logic can define possible options.
Remember, putting something beyond logic allows for statements to be true and not true at the same time. Given that, you can't really know anything.

...and asteriks are annoying :P

[Andarcel]

Complexity is arrived at through reason, and not concensus, and therefore it is objective. You are correct, I should not have used the word "agrees." But it is still not inherent in things, it depends on logic.

If you believe that propositions about the universe arrived at deductively cannot actually be said to be present in the universe, then you really believe logic is not a tool capable of grasping anything. If you believe that, we might as well stop now and forever hold our peace.



Arguments can easily be exactly the same, only said in different ways. Labels help in making them easily understood, and supported or refuted if necessary. People, however, are never exactly the same, which is why I don't like the labeling of a person as, say, an "atheist."

But that's still not why I used the label. I used the label because I thought you would recognize it, and that it was debunked over 200 years ago by David Hume. My argument is not exactly the same as the watchmaker, and were you paying attention to the two arguments rather than the label you would have noticed this. For one thing, my argument isn't teleological. For another, I don't need to have recourse to our experience that complex objects are the product of intelligence. This is the hook that Hume uses, and the only way he can debunk the watchmaker argument.

So now I invite you to come up with a response to it of your very own.

Easy. 1) What other intelligent life forms do you know of, and 2) how do you know every intelligent life form uses logic, or even know their names or where they live? Apparantly you and Kant have discovered intelligent life out there and are hiding it from the rest of us. Apparently, you for some unfathomable reason assume that Kant's argument is inductive when common sense shows that obviously it is not. These aren't objections, they're statements of your skepticism couched in sarcastic rhetorical questions. An objection would be you successfully positing a form of intelligence that doesn't use logic.

All arguments are invalid and beg the question? That's a new one to me. An argument is valid if the conclusion is necessary given the premises. It is invalid if it uses its conclusion as a reason for believing the premises. All valid arguments cannot support their own premises, so yes, in a sense all valid arguments beg the question. You learn something every day, I guess.

As defined by Aristotle, syllogisms are a "discourse in which, certain things being stated, something other than what is stated follows of necessity from their being so." [emphasis added] As in so many things, Aristotle was being sloppy. You can treat "I am" as distinct from "I think" (most people see them as conceptually different) or you can see that they include each other by definition. Simlarly, you can treat the fact that the sum of a triangle's angles is 180 degrees as separate from the definitions of triangle, angle, degree, and Euclid's fifth, or you can recognize that these premises taken together contain the conclusion. Aristotle's test doesn't distinguish between valid and invalid syllogisms, only trivial and meaningful syllogisms, and that difference is really all in how you look at it. If you want to treat "I think" and "I am" as indistinguishable, then all I have to say is "you know you think." And you do. You can't be mistaken about that, because the fact of being mistaken requires thinking.

You're assuming it could vary. As we have only one universe to study, the chances of it forming the way it did are 1:1. Without any alternative universe(s) to study this subject will have to remain conjecture. I'm assuming it's arbitrary, yes. As we know of no rules that could govern its selection, the chances of it turning out the way it did will have to remain 1 out of infinity.

Life may be part of the universe but my distinction was the inanimate parts of the universe (the "stage" so to speak) are simple while the animate parts (the "actors") are complex. Electromagnetism for example is simplier than a one-celled organism. I don't understand what you're getting at here.

We've searched the moon, Venus, Mars, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. There are many ways to discover life on a planet that don't involve a robot shoving it's arm into the dirt. Spectrography can provide us with details on the make-up of a planet's atmosphere even via Earth-based telescopes. Certain gases (like oxygen) are possible signs of life for example. Life on earth started without using oxygen. The only way to confirm the absence of life on a planet is to go over it with robots. Micro-organisms rarely show from space.

You should study up on Stanley Miller's experiment of 1953. Complexity can lead to simplicity without design. Um, well, yes, I have no doubt that complexity can lead to simplicity. Two complex chandeliers colliding at enough speed will reduce to very simple dust. What does this have to do with anything?

I suppose that means Plato, Aristotle and Kant did nothing new. I suppose you are wrong. There are an inifinite number of possible logical processes, and infinite number of possible mistakes. In that regard, each person alive "does something new."

Again this is counterintuitive to evolution. If different foods had different tastes we'd have no specialized taste buds which always get stimulated by certain foods on every tongue. Again, you miss the point. We could have identical taste buds (determined by evolution) identical brains and still taste the same food differently.

If your body never existed your mind wouldn't either. The mind is a product of the brain. You keep getting mired in naturalism. How do you know you have a body? Because perceptions in your mind tell you so. How do you know you need a brain? Because perceptions in your mind tell you so. They could be completely wrong, as I said. They could be the product of the evil demon which is torturing you, the ghost with these delusions of bodies and brains.

Andarcel is anthropomorphizing the universe, claiming it obeys the laws of logic yet it has no reason to - as though the inanimate universe has will and desire. What?! So when I say "the reason for the doll falling was gravity" I'm anthropomorphizing the doll? Really, this is a very weird misconstruction of "reason." Perhaps you're getting confused by its multiple definitions. In the sentence above, I'm using reason in the sense of "cause."

Is there anywhere a summation of a point here? You can more or less start with my post on three arguments for God.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Remember, putting something beyond logic allows for statements to be true and not true at the same time. Given that, you can't really know anything.

...and asteriks are annoying :P

Actually Sage, the object that is "the great beyond", is an immutible and necessary object. Kant argues this eloquently in his antinomies, and also in the trancendental doctrine of method in his critique of pure reason. The reason why its been so painstakingly difficult to communicate this truth to you is the fact that you have no concept or understanding of dialectics. Dialectic is the ultimate key to knowledge. We can "know" that by observing the cosmos, that there MUST be an intelligent designer. That's all that can be said regarding it. As for "knowing God", more akin to what Raffster seems to be so passionate about, that comes about with union of reason, and revelation. Scripture says "The spirit of God searches the depths of God". The only real way one can know something is to become it. In that sense, we can only "know" God by means of his spirit in us, which is the crux of the Gospel.

[Oberon]

I don't believe I have erred in my statement. Our understanding of logic is still discovered, rather than created. Hail Kant and Aristotle.


Your error is so clear I have a hard time believing you don't see it. Logic is discovered. Our understanding of logic is created. In other words, putting our discovery of logic in print in a way others can learn of it and understand it - that is creation by man. The subject written about is discovered, the writing is creation. If you disagree then you must believe Critique of Reason was discovered by Kant already bound and printed (assuming by God) and not written and published by Kant himself.

[Sage the Mage]

We can "know" that by observing the cosmos, that there MUST be an intelligent designer.
In order for that to be known, God can't be beyond logic.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Your error is so clear I have a hard time believing you don't see it. Logic is discovered. Our understanding of logic is created. In other words, putting our discovery of logic in print in a way others can learn of it and understand it - that is creation by man. The subject written about is discovered, the writing is creation. If you disagree then you must believe Critique of Reason was discovered by Kant already bound and printed (assuming by God) and not written and published by Kant himself.

That's much different than creating logic per se, which you implied.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

In order for that to be known, God can't be beyond logic.

Within logic then, the "notion of God" is not beyond logic. In the same breath, "God" is beyond logic. How's that?

[Shangori]

sage, wonderful statements..

a debate that has been going on for 1000s of years and in the past few decades people are looking at things differently. Logic is becoming a much bigger part of our lives. Looking at computers, technology, etc.
People are starting to understand the universe a little bit at a time. Science, physics.. The reason why i'm not saying there is/isnt a god, is simply because we don't know enough yet.
If god is something illogical, then the way christians describe god, would be false. god wouldnt come down to earth and exist amongst us all, simply because that would mean that god existed within logic. if god is logical, then he wouldnt be able to exist before the beginning of time.

So, could god went from being a entity that existed outside the universe, to something that can live in this universe? after all, if you look at things in a illogical way, everything is possible. perhaps this is the case, but that would also mean that the god that exists now in this universe, isnt as powerful as he used to be, because he is bounded by the logic that he created himself... Also, if this is true, the statements in the bible couldnt be true either, because god cant change (his mind), right?

in the end, i wont say he doesnt exist, or that he does. i simply dont know enough and i doubt that humans ever will. What i DO know, is religion as it is on this planet (every religion) is looking at god in a very illogical way. Why would he create something as the universe? why did he make humans (who are pretty much destroying the things that he made) capable of evil? dont bring in the devil please... a god who knows everything and can do everything, would make us capable of evil on purpose.

In the end i see religious people or even people who explain everything spiritually doing so to make their lives more bearable. hey, if it keeps you from killing others or if it just makes you happy, go ahead.

anyway, these were my 2 cents...

[Radhil]

It is centered around a debate about the existence of God, however the arguments bring up many other things that need clarification, such as, currently, logic and experience. It is possible to understand all of this just by thinking hard and looking up a few terms, such as names of different philosophies. AoA was right when he said logic isn't created by us. It is discovered by examining how we think. An aesthetician named Gene Blocker once wrote that philosophers talk about talking, and think about thinking.

I like to delude myself into thinking that these topics aren't so long by putting 30 posts on a page :).

I can understand some of it. I'm not well read but I got a decent brain (ie. never read Kant, et al, but probably would given time). It's just looks like far too many diverting points here to handle. Mental equivalent of jumping into broken glass.

30 post suggestion taken - headache lessened. Let's see what damage I can do.

EDIT - OK, Andarcel, I've started with your three points. Probably one of the most well written posts I've ever seen on the subject. But naturally, this wouldn't be interesting if I didn't think something was off.

Point 3 especially. Besides the utterly bizarre (where does telekinesis come in?), I don't see how any of it works. You bring up that experience influences behavior, but that it cannot exist in a mechanical model. The upshot of what you're saying (as I see it) is that something has to feed our experience into our behaviors to alter them, and the only thing that could be is a soul of some sort that transcends physical nature (correct me if this is not what you're saying).

In response, I would say this: I have a wall, about three feet to my right at the moment. Let's say I do something (punch it, drill it, chainsaw it) to put a hole in it. So the wall is now changed. How is this not an experience for the wall? The whole point, or behavior if you will, of a wall is to stand there, be solid, separate one space from another. I've now damaged it - and it's behavior will have changed. It can't separate anymore. It is no longer as solid, and will likely start to crumble faster as time wears away at the damage I've done to it. It no longer works as it originally did.

I would ask you how this is any different than our experience and subsequent behavior.

And if I'm off base here, just tell me why - I'm trying to understand these arguements as much as I'm trying to toss in my own.

[Akeera]

Well that may be what you believe, but there are plenty of people that hell is full of maggots and fire.

Well....hell is just the absense of God, so if you didn't believe in god, then it wouldn't be very horrible spending all of eternity there. However, if you did, then it WOULD be, well...hell....

(have I made myself clear?) :confused:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

a debate that has been going on for 1000s of years and in the past few decades people are looking at things differently. Logic is becoming a much bigger part of our lives. Looking at computers, technology, etc.
People are starting to understand the universe a little bit at a time. Science, physics.. The reason why i'm not saying there is/isnt a god, is simply because we don't know enough yet.


Is the discovery of God to come by means of scientific inquiry? What criteria do you base your assertion on?


If god is something illogical, then the way christians describe god, would be false. god wouldnt come down to earth and exist amongst us all, simply because that would mean that god existed within logic. if god is logical, then he wouldnt be able to exist before the beginning of time.


That sounds a bit Platonic, much like his demiurge - insisting that God be subject to the laws of the cosmos.


So, could god went from being a entity that existed outside the universe, to something that can live in this universe? after all, if you look at things in a illogical way, everything is possible. perhaps this is the case, but that would also mean that the god that exists now in this universe, isnt as powerful as he used to be, because he is bounded by the logic that he created himself... Also, if this is true, the statements in the bible couldnt be true either, because god cant change (his mind), right?


To be bound by something is to be under, or at the same degree of its essence. Humans are bound by space/time for example. Such could not be the case with the creator.


in the end, i wont say he doesnt exist, or that he does. i simply dont know enough and i doubt that humans ever will. What i DO know, is religion as it is on this planet (every religion) is looking at god in a very illogical way. Why would he create something as the universe? why did he make humans (who are pretty much destroying the things that he made) capable of evil? dont bring in the devil please... a god who knows everything and can do everything, would make us capable of evil on purpose.


My.. you seem to "know" alot to make a sweeping generalization like that.. As for why he created anything to begin with, I don't know. However, the scriptures and reason point towards a "becoming" of being, that could only have happened in this manner. Such is the mystery of the incarnation, so that they may "become like unto God".


In the end i see religious people or even people who explain everything spiritually doing so to make their lives more bearable. hey, if it keeps you from killing others or if it just makes you happy, go ahead.


I think everyone - be it religious or otherwise - has a need for catharsis. Beyond that however, there is value in discovering the truth.

[Radhil]

Missed this...

In the end i see religious people or even people who explain everything spiritually doing so to make their lives more bearable. hey, if it keeps you from killing others or if it just makes you happy, go ahead.

You could say that science is nothing more than a way to makes lives more bearable. Tech enables us to do things we've never been able to do, and makes the things we've done easier. So why do you give religion such a shaft for the same reason?

I find it interesting that you claim not to know anything certain about God in one sentence, and that you point-blank state that God made evil people in the next.

[raffster]

in the end, i wont say he doesnt exist, or that he does. i simply dont know enough and i doubt that humans ever will. What i DO know, is religion as it is on this planet (every religion) is looking at god in a very illogical way. Why would he create something as the universe? why did he make humans (who are pretty much destroying the things that he made) capable of evil? dont bring in the devil please... a god who knows everything and can do everything, would make us capable of evil on purpose.

In the end i see religious people or even people who explain everything spiritually doing so to make their lives more bearable. hey, if it keeps you from killing others or if it just makes you happy, go ahead.


:clap: This is also another "great" post for its "balance" and humility. Indeed, who cares if you believe in God or not? Or if you attempt to prove or disprove God's existence with limited human intellect? For as long as your belief or lack of it keeps you happy and morally upright, then all's good.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

:clap: This is also another "great" post for its "balance" and humility. Indeed, who cares if you believe in God or not? Or if you attempt to prove or disprove God's existence with limited human intellect? For as long as your belief or lack of it keeps you happy and morally upright, then all's good.

What are you, some kind of pot-smoking zen cheerleader? If there was ever anything I have wanted to do on this OTF, it was to educate people on the true nature of "humility". Most OTF denizens believe that humility consists in saying "I don't know", or rather, that true humility exists in admission that we "cannot know the truth". On the polar opposite, these same folk would assert that those bearing an authoritative tone regarding such matters would be "arrogant", or a "know it all". The mark of arrogance is in accord with that statement of yours I've highlighted. What an arrogant statement! What you've done here is push aside all humble inquiry of the truth, and have re-created it for the sake of immediate gratification. That's reprehensible. Also, the notion of making epistemology relative and arbitrary, with the notion of "morally upright" in the same sentance is absolutely laughable.

The humble one would take that apart in the spirit of intellectual honesty and ask him/herself the following.. "why is it important to be happy and morally upright". And in the new guy's case, "why do human beings have a need to be happy, and/or make their lives bearable?". You see, its all these underpinnings that are at stake here, and posters you call "humble" simply brush them aside. That action is either one of extreme arrogance, or of ignorance. If it's of ignorance, listen to this post and become educated. If it's arrogance, continue posting as you normally would.

[Shangori]

i will :) cause this is the nature of men. selfish, arrogant. proving their own right to feel better about themselves and the lives they live.

What i was going for, was not so much telling you something was wrong or right, i was stating my mind, my believes. As religious people say they "know" god exists, i simply say i dont know and dont care. i do have a very strong opinion on these kind of things. but for everything that i put here, you will state something oposite to it. and like i said, this has been going on for 1000s of years. people trying to make sense of the world by putting the things they can't explain in a philosopical mixture. they dream about it, fantasize about it, create a religion around it.

yup, i dont know if a god exists or not. yup, i do know that, if he does exist, he is nothing like the bible/koran or any other book/religion says. Why? i dont know... do you know why god would be like its described in the big book?
Science has explained and proven things that 500 years ago was thought to be only done by witches/warlocks, etc. People are able to fly, store the data of so many books on something as small as the point of a pin, we can bring people back to life. Stuff that before were considered an act of god, are now common and is done by pretty much everyone. I think that eventually, we will know enough to explain even the beginning of the universe.

Science is thinking of a theory and try to prove that theory by a test that can be redone over and over again. If someone does that same test in about 20 years, the outcome would be the same. religion is thinking of theories and believe in these theories, without testing for truth. Hey, i know that even scientific tests can be wrong, but they will see their error and look on for the truth. to explain the universe with logic will always be my prefered way of looking at things.

a man is but a man... a piece of flesh, controlled by a brain, influenced by chemicals... to think we are the image of god, to think we are any better then animals, plants or even a rock. That is arrogance

In the end you only live for yourself. you do good things, because they make you feel good, you serve god, because it'll get you into heaven and you try to prove your way, because otherwise your existence would be flawed and meaningless. in the end, you're just as selfish and arrogant as i am :p

excuse the spelling, its late and i'm dutch :yawn:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

i simply say i dont know and dont care. i do have a very strong opinion on these kind of things.


A strong opinion that you don't care? Almost seems like you don't want to know. This position would be reinforced by your continual reference to the notion of a circular argument over this for "1000s of years". I'm here to tell you that it does matter, and scepticism is a joke.


but for everything that i put here, you will state something oposite to it.


Not necessarily. You've mentioned some good points that I'll get to in a sec.


and like i said, this has been going on for 1000s of years. people trying to make sense of the world by putting the things they can't explain in a philosopical mixture. they dream about it, fantasize about it, create a religion around it.


I would offer that a more refined understanding of philosophy and its particular problems would very likely change how you phrazed the last few lines. Philosophy is not a smorgasboard of random "ideas", but rather a systematic whole of what's been discovered. Any philosopher who takes their work seriously cannot hope to believe that "its all just chaos".


yup, i dont know if a god exists or not. yup, i do know that, if he does exist, he is nothing like the bible/koran or any other book/religion says. Why? i dont know... do you know why god would be like its described in the big book?
Science has explained and proven things that 500 years ago was thought to be only done by witches/warlocks, etc. People are able to fly, store the data of so many books on something as small as the point of a pin, we can bring people back to life. Stuff that before were considered an act of god, are now common and is done by pretty much everyone. I think that eventually, we will know enough to explain even the beginning of the universe.


Yes, one day perhaps, we will understand how it started. Science and religion entertains no authentic clash. The age of this science/religion confrontation (a la bacon) is rather dated. Core tenets of the faith do not describe scientific phenomena, unlike popular myths of the time that were taught under the guise of canon law.


Science is thinking of a theory and try to prove that theory by a test that can be redone over and over again. If someone does that same test in about 20 years, the outcome would be the same. religion is thinking of theories and believe in these theories, without testing for truth.


Religion is simply a framework to live your life out of. You have a religion as well.


Hey, i know that even scientific tests can be wrong, but they will see their error and look on for the truth. to explain the universe with logic will always be my prefered way of looking at things.


Intellectual honesty demands an objective approach.


a man is but a man... a piece of flesh, controlled by a brain, influenced by chemicals... to think we are the image of god, to think we are any better then animals, plants or even a rock. That is arrogance


Rather, that's arrogance to uphold reductionsm as a truth. What's additionally arrogant is the fact that having held this belief, a person will act on it, and treat other people likewise. That's not only polluting your own mind, but denying the dignity of others. That's called projecting your own subjective self image. I'm telling you human beings are much more than simple matter.


In the end you only live for yourself. you do good things, because they make you feel good, you serve god, because it'll get you into heaven and you try to prove your way, because otherwise your existence would be flawed and meaningless. in the end, you're just as selfish and arrogant as i am :p

excuse the spelling, its late and i'm dutch :yawn:

This last paragraph speaks some truth to it. Yes, everyone lives for themselves, and even devout church goers go out of hope for getting something out of it (otherwise, why do it). This is indeed part of human nature. You have yet to take it a step further by looking at the roots of motivation. If desire and fulfillment are written into our natures, what does that tell you, what does it mean?

[Sage the Mage]

Haha, AoA speaking on arrogance :)

Within logic then, the "notion of God" is not beyond logic. In the same breath, "God" is beyond logic. How's that?
Well obviously you can know stuff about God by what you define God as.

[raffster]

What are you, some kind of pot-smoking zen cheerleader? If there was ever anything I have wanted to do on this OTF, it was to educate people on the true nature of "humility". Most OTF denizens believe that humility consists in saying "I don't know", or rather, that true humility exists in admission that we "cannot know the truth". On the polar opposite, these same folk would assert that those bearing an authoritative tone regarding such matters would be "arrogant", or a "know it all". The mark of arrogance is in accord with that statement of yours I've highlighted. What an arrogant statement! What you've done here is push aside all humble inquiry of the truth, and have re-created it for the sake of immediate gratification. That's reprehensible. Also, the notion of making epistemology relative and arbitrary, with the notion of "morally upright" in the same sentance is absolutely laughable.

The humble one would take that apart in the spirit of intellectual honesty and ask him/herself the following.. "why is it important to be happy and morally upright". And in the new guy's case, "why do human beings have a need to be happy, and/or make their lives bearable?". You see, its all these underpinnings that are at stake here, and posters you call "humble" simply brush them aside. That action is either one of extreme arrogance, or of ignorance. If it's of ignorance, listen to this post and become educated. If it's arrogance, continue posting as you normally would.

You've missed the point once again AoA. You like to continually intellectualize things and that's where the problem is. Whether or not the OTF person I was cheering for is actually humble or not is besides the point -- the point is he is humble enough to admit that he cannot possibly know everything, God included.

I don't see how admitting that one cannot possibly know everything is a sign of arrogance. Isn't it the other way around -- that those who claim they truly and fully understand God are the ones who are indeed, the ones who are arrogant?

Unfortunately, AoA, not every person in this world is as intellectual (perhaps even as intelligent) as you are. If we were then we wouldn't be discussing this point right now.

Sorry if my cheerleading bothered you but I will try to be more tactful next time.

Finally just by the tone of your post seems like you're a little bit upset. And I can understand why. I used to intellectualize a lot like you and finally realized there's no point to it. Even if you had the brains of all human beings who ever lived you will NEVER understand God, assuming there is one. Maybe bits and pieces of what God could possibly be or is, but not in the tone that your posts suggests.

Even the Buddha rebuked Buddhists monks who knew all his teachings by heart but had not an ounce of true insight. Intellect is one thing. Perceiving is another. Do not confuse one for the other. I have not yet perceived, otherwise I would have known better. My intelligence is not nowhere close to yours, and for that much, I apologize.

And I do apologize to all the subscribers of this thread if my post sounded arrogant. That wasn't my purpose at all.

Many times I have tried to understand God and no perception has come. Perhaps AoA has -- and maybe he would like to share that experience.

[raffster]

Also, the notion of making epistemology relative and arbitrary, with the notion of "morally upright" in the same sentance is absolutely laughable.

Sorry I would like to clarify this. Are you suggesting/saying that from what I said "For as long as your belief or lack of it keeps you happy and morally upright, then all's good" that atheists are not capable of leading a happy or life that is morally upright?

If that's what you were trying to imply then I disagree. I have seen atheists who live more morally upright lives than some folks I know who treat the Bible like a photographer does to his camera. Someone very dear to me goes to Church everyday -- with his mistress, not his wife.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Haha, AoA speaking on arrogance :)


Well obviously you can know stuff about God by what you define God as.


We've been through that, and I was sincere in my treatise on arrogance. I can't explain it to you anymore than I already have. Perhaps you're not ready for dialectics yet. If you're up to it, start reading Hegel.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You've missed the point once again AoA. You like to continually intellectualize things and that's where the problem is. Whether or not the OTF person I was cheering for is actually humble or not is besides the point -- the point is he is humble enough to admit that he cannot possibly know everything, God included.


My definition of arrogance was more directed towards the idea that arrogance involves not wanting to know the truth, and to settle on a dogmatism or scepticism (in that case, it was "i have a strong opinion, and I dont care about it).


I don't see how admitting that one cannot possibly know everything is a sign of arrogance.


It's not.


Isn't it the other way around -- that those who claim they truly and fully understand God are the ones who are indeed, the ones who are arrogant?


Nobody here made that claim.


Unfortunately, AoA, not every person in this world is as intellectual (perhaps even as intelligent) as you are. If we were then we wouldn't be discussing this point right now.


Continuing to come off as a lamb still doesn't change the debate here, nor does it paint things correctly. In truth, I'm not much smarter than most of the people here. If there's a difference however, its in that I've probably read alot more stuff, and I take it seriously.


Sorry if my cheerleading bothered you but I will try to be more tactful next time.


It's not about tact - I'd rather see someone speaking their mind. Go ahead and post what you want.


Finally just by the tone of your post seems like you're a little bit upset. And I can understand why. I used to intellectualize a lot like you and finally realized there's no point to it. Even if you had the brains of all human beings who ever lived you will NEVER understand God, assuming there is one. Maybe bits and pieces of what God could possibly be or is, but not in the tone that your posts suggests.


Now you're attempting to use reason to debunk reason. That usually does upset me, yes. I don't know where this term "intellectualize" came from, nor its relevance. What I can say however is the fact that your posts come from some train of thought. Then, when I counter them, you slide back into "whatever" stage. Put up your dukes and try to argue your points, instead of just trying to smoothe it over, and say "everything is one, and it doesnt matter anyway".


Even the Buddha rebuked Buddhists monks who knew all his teachings by heart but had not an ounce of true insight. Intellect is one thing. Perceiving is another. Do not confuse one for the other. I have not yet perceived, otherwise I would have known better. My intelligence is not nowhere close to yours, and for that much, I apologize.


Lol.. sounds like an episode of Kung Fu: The Legend Continues :p. I don't understand what you mean by "perception". Please define it. Do not say "it cant be defined" or something like that. If its a word, it has meaning.

[raffster]

Lol.. sounds like an episode of Kung Fu: The Legend Continues :p. I don't understand what you mean by "perception". Please define it. Do not say "it cant be defined" or something like that. If its a word, it has meaning.

All right, that's fine. I speak of perception here in the context of direct experience. Direct experience as "it is".

What does God look like? What does God's voice sound like? What did God tell you that is so convincing? Who created God? Where did God come from?

You asked what I meant by "peception" and those questions are my answer. I am not trying to be a wise guy or being like a Kung Fu master. I am simply asking as is and I expect the same "as is" replies.

[Oberon]

That's much different than creating logic per se, which you implied.


That may have been what you inferred but it's not what I implied. Just chalk it up to poor interpretation on your part. :D

[Andarcel]

I can understand some of it. I'm not well read but I got a decent brain (ie. never read Kant, et al, but probably would given time). It's just looks like far too many diverting points here to handle. Mental equivalent of jumping into broken glass.

30 post suggestion taken - headache lessened. Let's see what damage I can do.

EDIT - OK, Andarcel, I've started with your three points. Probably one of the most well written posts I've ever seen on the subject. But naturally, this wouldn't be interesting if I didn't think something was off.

Point 3 especially. Besides the utterly bizarre (where does telekinesis come in?), I don't see how any of it works. You bring up that experience influences behavior, but that it cannot exist in a mechanical model. The upshot of what you're saying (as I see it) is that something has to feed our experience into our behaviors to alter them, and the only thing that could be is a soul of some sort that transcends physical nature (correct me if this is not what you're saying).

In response, I would say this: I have a wall, about three feet to my right at the moment. Let's say I do something (punch it, drill it, chainsaw it) to put a hole in it. So the wall is now changed. How is this not an experience for the wall? The whole point, or behavior if you will, of a wall is to stand there, be solid, separate one space from another. I've now damaged it - and it's behavior will have changed. It can't separate anymore. It is no longer as solid, and will likely start to crumble faster as time wears away at the damage I've done to it. It no longer works as it originally did.

I would ask you how this is any different than our experience and subsequent behavior.

And if I'm off base here, just tell me why - I'm trying to understand these arguements as much as I'm trying to toss in my own.
Oh, thank God, someone got somewhere with 3). I'm not completely crazy!

I'm arguing that experience cannot be part of purely mechanical model, because it by definition has nothing to do with mechanics. If I could get from that to a soul, I would, but I can't and I know it. Unless you define soul as simply the part of us that experiences.

Perhaps the best thing would be for me to explain the reasoning process that led me to this point, which will no doubt spawn a whole new series of issues, but what the heck. We have worlds enough, and time. True spirit of philosophical inquiry.

A while ago I was considering the ethical dilemma of pure naturalism. If people consist solely of an arrangement of particles, what makes them any more significant that any other arrangement of particles? Why should it be any more evil to kill a child than to smash a car?

The answer, for a pure naturalist, is that it isn't. If he's right, all morality, all ethics, disappear. So I looked for something that might set people apart from things. And that something is experience; without it there is no morality.

Now, the first objection arises. How do we know that other things don't have experiences? How do we know that rocks don't feel pain? How do we know, as you asked, that a wall won't feel hurt when you smash it? We know this in two ways. First, there are certain conditions in us in order to experience things. For example, if I have all the nerves in my arm severed, I can't feel anything in that arm. Simply having a chunk of matter is not enough; there are precise physiological circumstances that have to be satisfied. A wall, as near as we can tell, has none of those circumstances. Secondly, consciousness has, if not definite boundaries, at least a definite center in our brains. If all matter were equally capable of experience, the experience would be undifferentiated. If experience didn't care about the presence or absence of brains, than we shouldn't find it centered in ours. In fact, the universe should be one undivided sea of consciousness in a sort of Buddhist way. If my skull, my skin, the air between us, and your skull and your skin are all equally capable of consciousness, there could be no boundary between us. The air would be as much a part of me as my cerebral cortex. It isn't. Therefore, we have reason to believe that experience is highly selective about the sorts of matter it occurs in.

My next thought was that, in fact, my status as an experiencing being could be unique for all I know. Everone else could be as devoid of experience as the wall, and how would I be able to tell? It seems reasonable, of course, to assume that the same formation of matter that produces consciousness in me should also produce it in them, but because I can only ever observe their behavior, I surmised that I wouldn't be able to tell. But as I thought it over some more, I realized that I could never have these thoughts if I weren't an experiencing being. I would never write this post if I didn't have experiences, because it contains information that can only be got from experience. A purely mechanical being, however complex, would never have cause to write it. From this we know that experience changes behavior; mind interfers in matter, which is really the definition of telekinesis.

It did seem bizarre, and I spent a lot of time turning it over and looking for problems, but I have yet to spot any. So I do believe in at least the possibility of telekinesis, because it goes on all the time. Whether it could ever be more than nudging a few key particles in our brains this way or that is of course highly doubtful, but I think the precedent is there.

And this gives me the means of knowing that other people also have experiences when they understand and discuss these sorts of problems. When they do, they are demonstrating their status as conscious beings which means their consciousness must have intervened in their behavior.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

All right, that's fine. I speak of perception here in the context of direct experience. Direct experience as "it is".

What does God look like? What does God's voice sound like? What did God tell you that is so convincing? Who created God? Where did God come from?

You asked what I meant by "peception" and those questions are my answer. I am not trying to be a wise guy or being like a Kung Fu master. I am simply asking as is and I expect the same "as is" replies.

Ok, so "as is" by your definition means empirical observation. I am saying that this method cannot be used. What's your take on that?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

That may have been what you inferred but it's not what I implied. Just chalk it up to poor interpretation on your part. :D

Uh... yeeaaa.. Righto.

[raffster]

Ok, so "as is" by your definition means empirical observation. I am saying that this method cannot be used. What's your take on that?

Is that a trick question so you can call me again a pot-smoking Zen cheerleader? I'm really confused now.

In the christianforums.com there are those who were able to use the empirical method by citing actual "mystical experiences/encounters" with God. Whether they spoke the truth or not is between them and their God. Some even threw bible verses at me which these guys believed to be quite empirical.

By your own admission you yourself *know* God only through intellect and reasoning and not because you've actually encountered God. Hmmm, interesting. It's comparable to trying to understand the taste of a fruit you've never tasted by reading a description about it. That is what I meant by "perceived" in an earlier reply.

So if God is purely in your intellect and not in your heart, how does *God* impact your life? Are you a naturally more loving/charitable person? Or do you have to intellectualize good before you actually do good?

My intention is not to judge your faith, but rather, inquire as to how faith has changed your life, whether for the good or for the bad?

If you are absolutely positively convinced that God cannot be known through empiral means then we have nothing more to discuss, at least as far as this thread/topic is concerned.

[Cloud_Walker]

If you believe that propositions about the universe arrived at deductively cannot actually be said to be present in the universe, then you really believe logic is not a tool capable of grasping anything. If you believe that, we might as well stop now and forever hold our peace.

Logic helps us understand our experience. It does not tell us about reality. Not even science does that. This is the numena/phenomena separation that even Kant left.

For another, I don't need to have recourse to our experience that complex objects are the product of intelligence.

I forgot the formal name for this, but it is a fallacy to think that because "all known X are a," therefore "all X are a." Just because intelligent beings (us) can create complex things, it doesn't mean that every complex thing was created by something intelligent.

Apparently, you for some unfathomable reason assume that Kant's argument is inductive when common sense shows that obviously it is not. These aren't objections, they're statements of your skepticism couched in sarcastic rhetorical questions. An objection would be you successfully positing a form of intelligence that doesn't use logic.

See above.

Further,
1) Common sense is often wrong, FYI, and it does not support any argument,
2) For Kant's argument (as presented by you) to be correct, he would have had to observe every thinking being in the entire universe and tested them somehow to see if they used logic, OR he would have had to make some argument whereby thinking automatically entails logic, which it doesn't.
3) Showing an argument to be fallacious is all that is necessary. This isn't scepticism.

An argument is valid if the conclusion is necessary given the premises. It is invalid if it uses its conclusion as a reason for believing the premises. All valid arguments cannot support their own premises, so yes, in a sense all valid arguments beg the question. You learn something every day, I guess.

I learn from good teachers. The inference makes the conclusion true from a true premise. "I think, therefore I am" is just asserting that "I exist." There is no inference, it just says "a, therefore a." It's so circular you could roll it down a hill. Do you not understand the concept of "begging the question?"

You: I think, therefore I am
Me: Well, how do you know you exist to think?

You begged my question because you haven't proved anything. It's like saying that God exists because God created the universe (which is actually the ID argument). Granted, I know that I must exist to think, but it is assumed, and is never proven.

As in so many things, Aristotle was being sloppy. You can treat "I am" as distinct from "I think" (most people see them as conceptually different) or you can see that they include each other by definition. Simlarly, you can treat the fact that the sum of a triangle's angles is 180 degrees as separate from the definitions of triangle, angle, degree, and Euclid's fifth, or you can recognize that these premises taken together contain the conclusion. Aristotle's test doesn't distinguish between valid and invalid syllogisms, only trivial and meaningful syllogisms, and that difference is really all in how you look at it. If you want to treat "I think" and "I am" as indistinguishable, then all I have to say is "you know you think." And you do. You can't be mistaken about that, because the fact of being mistaken requires thinking.

Calling something a polygon with 3 sides with interior angles that add up to 180 degrees on a Euclidean plane is the same thing as calling it a triangle. The degrees define the triangle, the triangle defines the degrees. But, and here's the key, we're assuming there's a triangle to talk about in the first place.

"You know you think" is not an argument. It is a statement, and a false one. If I did know something, I would be able to prove it to you.

[Oberon]

Is that a trick question so you can call me again a pot-smoking Zen cheerleader?

Of course it is. AoA has no interest in really debating a subject seriously. He simply likes the illusion his debating creates of self-superiority. That's why every debate he takes part in becomes a flame-fest of ad hominem attacks which eventually gets shut down by a moderator. Whether this is due to low self-esteem or a neurosis I can't say.

[raffster]

Of course it is. AoA has no interest in really debating a subject seriously. He simply likes the illusion his debating creates of self-superiority. That's why every debate he takes part in becomes a flame-fest of ad hominem attacks which eventually gets shut down by a moderator. Whether this is due to low self-esteem or a neurosis I can't say.

Hi Oberon. I always like to see the good and "nice" in people even if they get carried away sometimes. I'm sure AoA is a nice dude who just feels tempted to win in debates (hey nothing really wrong with that). What I just really want to know from him is if his belief in God comes mostly from his heart or from his mind, or from both? Or somewhere else...

[Cloud_Walker]

I'm arguing that experience cannot be part of purely mechanical model,

Then I suppose you completely understand quantum mechanics and all of its implications?

From this we know that experience changes behavior; mind interfers in matter, which is really the definition of telekinesis.

I found your problem. You assume mind is separate from matter. I already tackled this in post #236 (which I don't think you understood since you stated that someone "finally" did something with #3, in response to Radhil - go read it again), and the discussion from that ended in you saying that it (experience) is just weird. Later, you say that its (experience) existence gives meaning to the universe. I would object to that in the following way:

How do you know experience exists as some sort of separate entity? Experience is just a name for the sensa that we receive, or the thoughts we think, which are spurred by sensa (so we have internal and external experience). Me giving my computer a push so that it slides across the table and falls on the floor is just like you putting some food on a table and me going to eat it. The difference is that one is more easily understood than the other.

But if all of this is somehow an argument for the existence of a god, then it is a god of the gaps argument: "we don't understand it, therefore god did it, therefore god exists."

Also, experience changing behavior is characteristic of life in general. While being a thinking being entails behavior under the influence of experience, behaviour under the influence of experience does not entail a thinking being. So we move from a separation of people from things to a separation of life from things.

[Oberon]

Hi Oberon. I always like to see the good and "nice" in people even if they get carried away sometimes. I'm sure AoA is a nice dude who just feels tempted to win in debates (hey nothing really wrong with that). What I just really want to know from him is if his belief in God comes mostly from his heart or from his mind, or from both? Or somewhere else...


To be honest IMO most people believe in God because they find the idea of a world without one to be unbearable. Belief becomes a crutch to help them deal with concepts like death and morality. As I pointed out on my homepage in an essay on religion (http://www.nc2uk.net/religion.html), Christianity "offers assurance of Heaven to its followers, Hell to non-believers, and an imaginary friend whose crucified body can adorn your jewelry." Some Christians may find this offense but I think it's no worse then their constant rants about me and you going to Hell for not sharing their religion.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Is that a trick question so you can call me again a pot-smoking Zen cheerleader? I'm really confused now.


Nope, I'm being sincere.


In the christianforums.com there are those who were able to use the empirical method by citing actual "mystical experiences/encounters" with God. Whether they spoke the truth or not is between them and their God. Some even threw bible verses at me which these guys believed to be quite empirical.

By your own admission you yourself *know* God only through intellect and reasoning and not because you've actually encountered God. Hmmm, interesting. It's comparable to trying to understand the taste of a fruit you've never tasted by reading a description about it. That is what I meant by "perceived" in an earlier reply.

So if God is purely in your intellect and not in your heart, how does *God* impact your life? Are you a naturally more loving/charitable person? Or do you have to intellectualize good before you actually do good?

My intention is not to judge your faith, but rather, inquire as to how faith has changed your life, whether for the good or for the bad?

If you are absolutely positively convinced that God cannot be known through empiral means then we have nothing more to discuss, at least as far as this thread/topic is concerned.

I'll say that while the idea of God can come through reason, the "knowing" of God must come by revelation. Our hearts seek love and fulfillment - all that God is. Further discussion is up to you.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Of course it is. AoA has no interest in really debating a subject seriously. He simply likes the illusion his debating creates of self-superiority. That's why every debate he takes part in becomes a flame-fest of ad hominem attacks which eventually gets shut down by a moderator. Whether this is due to low self-esteem or a neurosis I can't say.

I can honestly say that you've popped up on mod radar ALOT more than I have (if ever). Posts like this one will only ensure you do so more often.. but cats only have 9 lives..

[AgeOfAbnegation]

To be honest IMO most people believe in God because they find the idea of a world without one to be unbearable. Belief becomes a crutch to help them deal with concepts like death and morality. As I pointed out on my homepage in an essay on religion (http://www.nc2uk.net/religion.html), Christianity "offers assurance of Heaven to its followers, Hell to non-believers, and an imaginary friend whose crucified body can adorn your jewelry." Some Christians may find this offense but I think it's no worse then their constant rants about me and you going to Hell for not sharing their religion.

I suppose your crutch would be expressing your opinions in posts such as this.. :uhhuh:

[Oberon]

I can honestly say that you've popped up on mod radar ALOT more than I have (if ever). Posts like this one will only ensure you do so more often.. but cats only have 9 lives..

I love the "if ever" part because you know you have showed up on their radar many times. They do tend to show bias towards you moreso than me which is probably because you started whining to them about my posts long before I started reporting yours (you even had the nerve to report me to Blizzard for /spit on you in-game). The squeekiest wheel gets the greese and boy did you squeek. My fault was letting you give them the false impression it was all me and poor AoA was a helpless victim. Others have been banned for making far less controversial statements than you. You're lucky the mods/admins here don't take some phobic remarks as seriously as others.

I suppose your crutch would be expressing your opinions in posts such as this.

If you want to call dialogue and reasoning a crutch then maybe you're right.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I love the "if ever" part because you know you have showed up on their radar many times. They do tend to show bias towards you moreso than me which is probably because you started whining to them about my posts long before I started reporting yours (you even had the nerve to report me to Blizzard for /spit on you in-game). The squeekiest wheel gets the greese and boy did you squeek. My fault was letting you give them the false impression it was all me and poor AoA was a helpless victim. Others have been banned for making far less controversial statements than you. You're lucky the mods/admins here don't take some phobic remarks as seriously as others.


If you want to steer the thread onto this, than it most assuredly will be locked. Further discussion of this is entirely useless, and your out-of-nowhere troll post commenting on my conversation with raff was waay out of place. I'm going to put the brakes on this now, and hope you will do the same.


If you want to call dialogue and reasoning a crutch then maybe you're right.

I don't call your "essay" reasoning at all, nor would I acclaim any sceptical rhetoric as "reason" whatsoever. Going back to my point on arrogance, the fact that you present that tripe on a public site as some manner of truth is a blatant scepticism-turned-dogmatism. Way to go in making up the truth :thumbsup:, what must I do to be saved?

[Oberon]

If you want to steer the thread onto this, than it most assuredly will be locked. Further discussion of this is entirely useless, and your out-of-nowhere troll post commenting on my conversation with raff was waay out of place. I'm going to put the brakes on this now, and hope you will do the same.

Ok. Brakes in place. Just lay off the flames for once.

I don't call your "essay" reasoning at all, nor would I acclaim any sceptical rhetoric as "reason" whatsoever. Going back to my point on arrogance, the fact that you present that tripe on a public site as some manner of truth is a blatant scepticism-turned-dogmatism. Way to go in making up the truth :thumbsup:, what must I do to be saved?

I thought it was clear to anyone with a functional brain that the essay was my opinion, my views on the topic. You're the one parroting Catholic dogma as absolute truth. At least I have the balls to spell out my opinions in a public site instead of hiding behind a pseudonym throwing flames at other posters. If you want to carry this on via PM go ahead.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok. Brakes in place. Just lay off the flames for once.


Um.. "WTF"? (O.O). You're the one who blasted your way into my discussion with raff. Get a grip.


I thought it was clear to anyone with a functional brain that the essay was my opinion, my views on the topic. You're the one parroting Catholic dogma as absolute truth.


While I attest to the creed, I haven't even scratched the surface yet with doctrines. Instead, I've been taking the grassroots approach with observables. Really man.. Slow down and read the posts..


At least I have the balls to spell out my opinions in a public site instead of hiding behind a pseudonym throwing flames at other posters. If you want to carry this on via PM go ahead.

No, I've told you long before I had no intention of ever doing that, and I don't plan on it. The only real reason I actually bother replying to you here is because it is a public forum, and your posts tend to disrupt the flow of other conversation. I really don't care how you wish to classify my posts here, save only for the fact that you classify it as having nothing to do with you, which was the case in this scenario.

[Sage the Mage]

Blah blah blah...just tell em to read Kant.

I can't explain it to you anymore than I already have. Perhaps you're not ready for dialectics yet. If you're up to it, start reading Hegel.
My main problem with this is that you seem to be avoiding the problem. Kinda like a crazy extremist wacko telling me to read some propaganda, and then I'll understand.

[raffster]

Nope, I'm being sincere.

Thank you.

I'll say that while the idea of God can come through reason, the "knowing" of God must come by revelation. Our hearts seek love and fulfillment - all that God is. Further discussion is up to you.

Earlier you asked me to define "perception" and I did. Kindly explain "knowing" through "revelation". Are you referring to:

1. Miracles that defy any type of science.
2. Actual "Revelation" of God in person such as the story of Moses in the Burning Bush?
3. A mystical experience that makes you *know* beyond reasonable doubt that there is more to this world than meets the eye.

#3 is very close or similar to what we Buddhists, especially Zen Buddhists, practice. This is the perception I was talking about from my end. It is only upon enlightenment that Buddhism can have any significant meaning in a Buddhist's life because it is only then when the Buddhist can grasp what is beyond the relative.

Lastly, I think that, recalling my Christian days, I believe my "Christian faith" wouldn't have been so easily "knocked-out" had I experienced "#2" or "#3" back then. Perhaps if there was someone very close to me who was terminally ill and suddenly got healed, "#1" could have been a major pillar for my faith. But I didn't have such an experience.

That is the really *weird* thing about God. There are many like me who really wanted to know Him. But, for some reason, God makes it so hard for himself to be *known*. If he appeared to Moses back then why can't He do the same thing now? God (Jesus) wants all mankind to have faith. It is really easier said than done.

[raffster]

To be honest IMO most people believe in God because they find the idea of a world without one to be unbearable. Belief becomes a crutch to help them deal with concepts like death and morality. As I pointed out on my homepage in an essay on religion (http://www.nc2uk.net/religion.html), Christianity "offers assurance of Heaven to its followers, Hell to non-believers, and an imaginary friend whose crucified body can adorn your jewelry." Some Christians may find this offense but I think it's no worse then their constant rants about me and you going to Hell for not sharing their religion.

Interesting read, Oberon. I could sense your utter disgust for born again Christians and other Christian denominations who are more inclined to think *born-again* -- I was born again once upon a time and I remember telling my grandmother that she will go to hell for praying the Rosary. How ironic is that? Ha ha ha! Anyway, recently I've discovered that there are some Christians who actually think more from the "Naturalist" perspective rather than the "Creationist" perspective. Of course they are classified as heretics by the bible believers but these "Christians" who identify more with common sense than blind faith really have very compelling reasons why they have *faith*. They don't see God as an old man with a beard sitting on some cloud but rather a force that governs and binds all things -- this is not the Holy Spirit either -- because the Holy Spirit is also a "person" in Christian teachings. These "Christian heretics" believe that God is the God of Nature and nature to them is all things including the universe.

This is just something for you to chew on: Not all Christians are born agains or Catholics, and not because someone is born again or a Catholic makes him or her a Christian.

Thanks a lot for sharing the essay.

[raffster]

AoA, here's a Buddhist who is more worthy of your time and patience:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1157771-buddhist-response-to-the-pope.html

Unlike me this more experience Buddhist hardly, if not never, results to the "whatever ... everything-is-one" remarks I'm often "guilty" of doing. He will engage in deep philosophical discussion without unnecessary rhetoric if he has to so I believe that you will find him a very interesting fellow. He is well versed in many religions, Catholicism included, and I think he knows more about Catholicism that most Catholics.

----

Oberon, you could probably shed some light with your own thoughts on this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1468858-atheism.html

----

PS to forum mod/admin: I double-checked forum rules before I posted this one and it doesn't seem like I'm breaking Rule #3. But if it does, I apologize and kindly delete this post.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Blah blah blah...just tell em to read Kant.


My main problem with this is that you seem to be avoiding the problem. Kinda like a crazy extremist wacko telling me to read some propaganda, and then I'll understand.

Sage, I've tried to explain dialectics to you many times, just using different words. You always come around and say - "if its not this way, its another way". I've given up. Up to you if you want to read the stuff or not.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Earlier you asked me to define "perception" and I did. Kindly explain "knowing" through "revelation". Are you referring to:

1. Miracles that defy any type of science.
2. Actual "Revelation" of God in person such as the story of Moses in the Burning Bush?
3. A mystical experience that makes you *know* beyond reasonable doubt that there is more to this world than meets the eye.

#3 is very close or similar to what we Buddhists, especially Zen Buddhists, practice. This is the perception I was talking about from my end. It is only upon enlightenment that Buddhism can have any significant meaning in a Buddhist's life because it is only then when the Buddhist can grasp what is beyond the relative.

Lastly, I think that, recalling my Christian days, I believe my "Christian faith" wouldn't have been so easily "knocked-out" had I experienced "#2" or "#3" back then. Perhaps if there was someone very close to me who was terminally ill and suddenly got healed, "#1" could have been a major pillar for my faith. But I didn't have such an experience.

That is the really *weird* thing about God. There are many like me who really wanted to know Him. But, for some reason, God makes it so hard for himself to be *known*. If he appeared to Moses back then why can't He do the same thing now? God (Jesus) wants all mankind to have faith. It is really easier said than done.


I'd say the best way to gauge this is to read the Gospels. We see examples of people seeing miracles and believing, while others (the pharisees) did not believe, in spite of the miracles. So, #1 can help as you mentioned (in example of your friend in the hospital), but it can't truly be defined as "knowing God" - thats more of an evidence of "knowing about" God (though it can lead to knowledge). The 2nd is also somewhat like #1, but having much more personal relevance. I'd love to have a #2 experience, but I doubt it would happen - it would defeat the purpose of this life. It's funny that in the scriptures, the disciples ask Jesus "Why wont you reveal yourself to everyone". They get a clouded answer. Likewise, people have asked me "God should be clear to everyone". I disagree. The reason being, if he were plain to everyone, that would nullify faith, which is the key ingredient for the changing of our beings. This world is all about becoming, not knowing. Indeed, clarity of God in this life would be to be in eternity - thus, life couldn't exist as it is with that kind of empirical clarity. Rather, it's about a movement of being towards change.

For #3, I have problems with some of the terms used there. I dont like the term "experience", because that would imply that its not a state of being, but rather a tool in which we used for our own ends. In addition, the "something beyond" is also problematic, as a transcendental experience will draw you to a particular object, and not a different one.

So, in your desire to "know God", who's to say that what's happening on this forum isn't part of the plan all along?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

He will engage in deep philosophical discussion without unnecessary rhetoric if he has to so I believe that you will find him a very interesting fellow. He is well versed in many religions, Catholicism included, and I think he knows more about Catholicism that most Catholics.


Lets see what he's got to say..


Comment: Nirvana is complete freedom from suffering and the causes of suffering, and hence, it is beyond the realms of transmigration in the cycle of life-and-death. Look at the life of Sakyamuni Buddha! After he attained Enlightenment he did not become apathetic to or resign from the world of suffering, instead he devoted the rest of his life to teaching people from all walks of life how to obtain ultimate liberation from suffering. To associate nirvana with apathy and resignation is obviously a mistake. God is beyond the suffering in the world, but that kind of transcendental state does not justify labeling apathy or resignation to His existence. If the supreme transcendence of God is understandable, so should the possibility of nirvana without apathy or resignation be.


Before arguing, he should state definitions. In this case, he asserts that "nirvana" (and no, not that popular seattle grunge band) is "beyond the cycle of life and death". I for one attest that it cannot be a cycle, but thats beside the point. He separates it from any semblance of the temporal, in the living and dying of human beings.


Comment: Buddhism may be classified as atheistic only in the sense that, due to the absence of a proper referent of a self, it is impossible to justify the identification of a Creator. In fact, the ultimate Buddhist question is not about the existence or nonexistence of the Creator, rather it is asking, how could anyone make a proper reference to any absolute independent identity? In the Buddhist Sutras there are many conventional references to heavenly beings; therefore, if the subject of atheism is not limited to the God but to gods, Buddhism cannot be considered atheistic.


Buddhism is inherently atheistic. Strange considering it proposes a scepticism "absolute identity", then proposes a dogmatism "enlightenment". The highlighted statement indicates the keystone of atheism. If it is impossible to justify belief in a God, it is impossible to posit its existence, and as such - atheism. This differs from agnosticism in that buddhism presents its own tenets in the form of a dogmatism.


Comment: The Buddhist teachings aim at resolving problems at the onset of formation of problems,


What solution other than poetics?


while the Christian approach is within a given context prescribed by the revelations. Consequently, the Buddhist teachings emphasize the artificial nature of conceptual distinctions and how to attain freedom from such prejudices,


More poetics.


while the Christian teachings center around infusing faith in and the defending of fundamental tenets.


That sounds more like brainwashing than discovery of truth. Funny that you state he knows more about Catholicism than most catholics Raff :p


From the Christian point of view, Buddhist teachings have been brought down to the question of creation and its value, even though in fact Buddhist teachings are focusing around direct experience of reality beyond and before the concept of creation. To say that Buddha was for or against creation is simply missing the point of Buddha's teachings.


heh, what a rhetorician. "Direct experience of reality" cannot be touched on without reference to reality as a whole, which demands investigation of its origins. I hate punks like this..


Comment: The state of perfect liberation is supreme illumination in the sense that all ignorance and consequent sorrows have been eradicated and therefore can no longer cast any shadow of suffering. The Buddhist teachings are abundant with philosophical analyses and dialogues, and in the records of Chan school there are many anecdotes denouncing Buddhas, Sutras and all established formality; in contrast, it is the Christian teachings that require more devout and trusting heart of their followers.


Philosophical analysis?? Who is he kidding? LMAO!. Then he moves on to cast judgement on Christians. Sounds like what you do on occasion Raff - "he knows more than most Catholics".. :thumbsup:


Comment: In the teachings of earlier Buddhism, emphasis was more on the path of purification; nevertheless, the teaching on compassion was conveyed through examples set by the Buddha and his main disciples who travelled far and wide to spread the teachings to people of all kinds. In the teachings of later Buddhism, Mahayana and Tantra, compassion is always emphasized as the foremost element of the quest for Enlightenment. There is nothing negative in these teachings.
As to teachings that point out the sorrows of worldly lives, the Bible is no less an abundant reservoir; hence, this kind of teaching is certainly not considered negative by the Pope. The remaining question is: what is negative in Buddhism? When Buddhism is thoroughly understood, the teachings are not assertions about but merely indicators toward the ultimate reality. As indicators the teachings can only be neutral but not negative or positive, and their pedagogical functions are at the discretion of a teacher based on spiritual experiences.


I might go on over to that forum and kick this guy's ass. This is infuriating.. There is no neutral ground in anything. Furthermore, he did not take into consideration the definition for positve and/or negative.


Comment: Buddha never taught that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering. Rather, it is the fundamental ignorance of a sense of self that is taught to be the source of all sorrows and suffering. In Buddhism it is taught that the world is pure when the mind is pure.


Ok, so its all about perception - fix the mind, fix the world - the world offers no authentic influence. Where TF then did the attitudes of the mind come from? Buddhism is opium for the mind. You should go read some Pavlov, or be locked in a Skinner box for a few years lol.. Then we'd gauge your "enlightenment".


All the teachings in Buddhism pointing out the sorrows and impermanence of worldly existence can easily be found in the Bible. To free oneself from the dominance of self, a temporary retreat from the world may be helpful for spiritual development; nevertheless, such retreats are not in themselves the ultimate goal. When one is free from conceptual and emotional self-centeredness, one experiences limitless-oneness with all there is.


Limitless-oneness with "all there is"... All of a sudden, I have no body... WTF!! What's happened to my being, that I'm suddenly omnipresent? Oh yea, I took that self-help course, and I've been set free.


Consequently, one spontaneously devotes one's life to the service of all for their well-being. Freedom from attachment does not result in indifference to the world, but self-centeredness does. In fact, freedom from attachment is the real opening to the world as it is.


Nobody is free from attachments. THis guy for instance, is enslaved to attachment on that rediculous opium-mentality of trying to deny the bread 'n' butter realities of life. In addition, self-centeredness does not make one indifferent to the world, quite the opposite. WTF what this guy thinking? When you're self-centered, you want something IN the world. Nobody is free from attachment. Desire is not the root of all evil - since everyone has desire. Rather, disordered desire is a root of evil.

[Radhil]

THis guy for instance, is enslaved to attachment on that rediculous opium-mentality of trying to deny the bread 'n' butter realities of life.

As you seem to be enslaved to the idea of being an ass at the mere suggestion of a different way of thinking. You maybe have two honest views in there surrounded by a massive mockery of insults. Trying to spread the little insight you have a little thin, aren't you?

More comments when I get time.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yea, I did get a bit carried away, my apologies.

[Sage the Mage]

Sage, I've tried to explain dialectics to you many times, just using different words.
And I keep asking the same question, which you try to answer by rewording your old answer.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And I keep asking the same question, which you try to answer by rewording your old answer.

It's obvious that we're at an impasse. What I am telling you Sage is that the method you are applying to this just does not work. You are using a method of empirical analysis to learn about God. That can't be possible. The reason why that isn't possible is the fact that God can't be analyzed, as it is not empirical. Once we have agreed on that much, then we can move ahead.

[Sage the Mage]

It's obvious that we're at an impasse. What I am telling you Sage is that the method you are applying to this just does not work. You are using a method of empirical analysis to learn about God. That can't be possible. The reason why that isn't possible is the fact that God can't be analyzed, as it is not empirical. Once we have agreed on that much, then we can move ahead.

So how about this...
So, God is beyond formal structures of the cosmos. Logic is a formal structure of the cosmos. So, God is beyond logic. Therefore, no application of reason can reliably establish anything about God.
Tell me exactly what's incorrect, or at least sketchy, here.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So how about this...

So, God is beyond formal structures of the cosmos. Logic is a formal structure of the cosmos. So, God is beyond logic. Therefore, no application of reason can reliably establish anything about God.


Tell me exactly what's incorrect, or at least sketchy, here.

There is a leap to the conclusion there. In addition, "formal structure of the cosmos" should be better defined in terms of logic. Logic is a formal structure of the cosmos, and it isnt. It's not an empirical structure, but it is a conceptual one. Since the universe is conceptual, and logic orders these concepts, we can say its a structure. Now for the last part...
God is said to be beyond logic. Now here, are we talking about the "idea of God", or "God himself?" Answer that, and we move ahead.

[Sage the Mage]

There is a leap to the conclusion there.
When logic isn't applicable, one or more rules of logic don't have to apply, so you can't infer the truth of any statement.

Logic is a formal structure of the cosmos, and it isnt. It's not an empirical structure, but it is a conceptual one. Since the universe is conceptual, and logic orders these concepts, we can say its a structure. Now for the last part...
Logic is a ruleset based on how we think the universe works. So, beyond structure of the universe, beyond the application of logic.

God is said to be beyond logic. Now here, are we talking about the "idea of God", or "God himself?" Answer that, and we move ahead.
God is beyond logic. The idea (prime mover, first cause, whatever) is about as far as you can get with logic. Even then its sketchy isn't it?

[Andarcel]

Logic helps us understand our experience. It does not tell us about reality. Not even science does that. This is the numena/phenomena separation that even Kant left. I don't, and I've already said why. But if you use this objection against an argument for God, well, you have to accept it for all things. So I guess we shall persist in a vacuum of denial. Or rather, you will. The rest of us, following Borge's instructions, will mirar con los ojos, y respirar, and accept that ultimately this kind of skepticism is so perfect that it is perfectly meaningless for any purpose at all.

I forgot the formal name for this, but it is a fallacy to think that because "all known X are a," therefore "all X are a." Just because intelligent beings (us) can create complex things, it doesn't mean that every complex thing was created by something intelligent. Which, y'know, might just be why I specifically didn't use that argument, and specifically pointed out that I didn't use that argument.

Further,
1) Common sense is often wrong, FYI, and it does not support any argument, You really DON'T read my posts, do you? You just search them for buzzwords and bring out a canned response. Common sense should have told you that Kant does not have any experience of alien life, and therefore his argument is not inductive.
2) For Kant's argument (as presented by you) to be correct, he would have had to observe every thinking being in the entire universe and tested them somehow to see if they used logic, OR he would have had to make some argument whereby thinking automatically entails logic, which it doesn't. But it does. Had ytou made this claim earlier, we could have come to the point a lot faster.
3) Showing an argument to be fallacious is all that is necessary. This isn't scepticism. You haven't done that. You haven't even TRIED to do that, because you made a bad assumption about the argument. Using supressed premises in these sorts of debates make it very difficult for everyone concerned.

I learn from good teachers. The inference makes the conclusion true from a true premise. "I think, therefore I am" is just asserting that "I exist." There is no inference, it just says "a, therefore a." It's so circular you could roll it down a hill. Do you not understand the concept of "begging the question?" Your good teachers failed to teach you much of critical reasoning, I think. I already responded to this. In detail. Here it is again. You think. You know this. I told you how you know this. This forms the basis of the argument for you being or if you choose to see no distinction between thinking and being, then you simply know you exist. You cannot be wrong about that because you have to exist to be wrong.

I found a basic logc textbook to help yus with this issue of circularity and begging the question.

"Arguing in a Circle (sometimes referred to as 'begging the question'). Suppose that I argue that you should believe that God exists. You ask why. I say, 'Because the Bible says so.' You ask, 'Why should I believe what the Bible says?' I reply, 'Because it's the Word of God.' Note that all valid deductive argument can appear as arguing in a cricle, since the conclusion of each argument is contained in the premises. The difference is that in a valid argument the conclusion brings out some nontrivial feature of the premises. Essentially, arguing in a circle is not invalid, just trivial and unconvincing."

You: I think, therefore I am
Me: Well, how do you know you exist to think? Me: Because I think. Here's how another argument might go:

Me: I see a child. Therefore, I know there was a parent.
You: (could argue that it's an instance of cloning or that my vision could be mistaken or something, but instead...) You need to have the parent in order to have a child. You're just asserting that there is a parent. But there might not be a parent, in which case, there is no child. So you really, you're just making an assumption.
Me: But that's preposterous! I'm not using the parent to argue for the child. I see the child right in front of me.
You: You're argument is circular. You need to have the parent in order to get the child, so you must have assumed the parent to argue for the child, and now you're arguing for the parent from the child. Do you not understand what "begging the question means"?
Me: But I know about the child on quite different grounds. That knowledge doesn't rest on the argument at all.
You: [I have no idea what you say to this, but I'm sure you'll come up with something.]

Calling something a polygon with 3 sides with interior angles that add up to 180 degrees on a Euclidean plane is the same thing as calling it a triangle. The degrees define the triangle, the triangle defines the degrees. But, and here's the key, we're assuming there's a triangle to talk about in the first place. No, because triangles are constructs and have no existence. And yes, I see your point, and yes, I already answered it, and yes, you still don't get it, which, yes, is frustrating.

"You know you think" is not an argument. It is a statement, and a false one. If I did know something, I would be able to prove it to you. Wrong. Sorry. Please try again. Nothing in the definition of knowing requires you to be able to convince anyone else. You do know you think, you know it because there is no alternative. Ain't no way to deceive something that doesn't exist.

I don't know who screwed you up on this point, but someone sure did.


Then I suppose you completely understand quantum mechanics and all of its implications? Funny you should say that, I'm studying qm at that moment. In any case, the question is a) irrelevant, and b) reveals once again your induction hang-up. I know that experience can never be made part of a purely mechanical model because mechanical by definition only describes behavior, and therefore excludes experience.

I already tackled this in post #236 (which I don't think you understood since you stated that someone "finally" did something with #3, in response to Radhil - go read it again I have. You didn't. As we can see:

Experience is just a name for the sensa that we receive, or the thoughts we think, which are spurred by sensa (so we have internal and external experience). Me giving my computer a push so that it slides across the table and falls on the floor is just like you putting some food on a table and me going to eat it. The difference is that one is more easily understood than the other. You're confusing experience with volition. I'm not arguing against determinism. I am arguing that the computer doesn't feel anything when it hits the floor, but you feel something pushing it. I just spent several paragraphs on this.

But if all of this is somehow an argument for the existence of a god, then it is a god of the gaps argument: "we don't understand it, therefore god did it, therefore god exists." If you start with God as a creator interested in making and developing people as a hypothesis, you look for confirmation. Finding confirmation (there ARE people who experience things) you look for other possible explanations. Finding none, you consider whether an alternative explanation could ever be formulated. If you can establish that no other explanation is possible, the evidence goes in the God column.

Also, experience changing behavior is characteristic of life in general. No, it isn't. Past events change the behavior of living things in general. That is not at all the same as saying that experience changes their behavior. You can have learning without experience.

"offers assurance of Heaven to its followers, Hell to non-believers, and an imaginary friend whose crucified body can adorn your jewelry." This is both contemptuous and, of course, ignorant. Your attempt to excuse it by stereotyping all Christians as just as ignorant and contemptuous as you. I hope I'm not the only one who sees the many ironies in this.

At least I have the balls to spell out my opinions in a public site instead of hiding behind a pseudonym throwing flames at other posters. Your courage impresses me almost as much as Rush Limbaugh's.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

When logic isn't applicable, one or more rules of logic don't have to apply, so you can't infer the truth of any statement.


Logic is a ruleset based on how we think the universe works. So, beyond structure of the universe, beyond the application of logic.


That is inaccurate. That would give logic a subjective foundation, when it is an a priori framework.


God is beyond logic. The idea (prime mover, first cause, whatever) is about as far as you can get with logic. Even then its sketchy isn't it?

Ok, so you can attest that logic can provide the "idea of God". Am I right in saying that?

[Sage the Mage]

That is inaccurate. That would give logic a subjective foundation, when it is an a priori framework.
Our use of logic could possibly be flawed, not logic itself.


Ok, so you can attest that logic can provide the "idea of God". Am I right in saying that?
A need for a necessary/first/prime being/mover/cause can be obtained via logic, given that the data is based solely on the universe.

...wait for it...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Our use of logic could possibly be flawed, not logic itself.


Most certainly.


A need for a necessary/first/prime being/mover/cause can be obtained via logic, given that the data is based solely on the universe.

...wait for it...

Ok, now you mention "a need for". Now by this, do you simply say that logic can provide for a "necessary/first/prime being/mover/cause", or rather, that logic can point out a need in us to create such an idea?

[Sage the Mage]

Provide for.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Ok thx. What was the problem then?

[Sage the Mage]

The problem is that you're assuming things about God (even indirectly) when using the is not thing.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'm sorry, but that just flew right over my head... In addition, I just took you through the reasoning of my position, to which you had no choice but to agree.

[Sage the Mage]

Tell me, what do you have to know about God when deciding on a necessary/first/prime being/mover/cause? Though you do draw conclusions about the universe, you never actually need to reference God.

Negation, however, implies that God follows logic. When you say God is not X, because the universe does Y, you assume that all things that do Y can't have the property of X.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Tell me, what do you have to know about God when deciding on a necessary/first/prime being/mover/cause? Though you do draw conclusions about the universe, you never actually need to reference God.


In a case like this, "God" is a term we can use to reference the "necessary/first/prime being/mover/cause" that reason calls for.


Negation, however, implies that God follows logic. When you say God is not X, because the universe does Y, you assume that all things that do Y can't have the property of X.

All that is irrelevant. To this point, we have went as far as we could with secure reason in simply positing a necessary first mover.

[Sage the Mage]

All that is irrelevant. To this point, we have went as far as we could with secure reason in simply positing a necessary first mover.
To which we have my assertion, that that is all that we can know.

[Cloud_Walker]

I don't, and I've already said why. But if you use this objection against an argument for God, well, you have to accept it for all things. So I guess we shall persist in a vacuum of denial. Or rather, you will. The rest of us, following Borge's instructions, will mirar con los ojos, y respirar, and accept that ultimately this kind of skepticism is so perfect that it is perfectly meaningless for any purpose at all.

You think I'm saying logic is completely worthless. I only clarified it. It correlates experience, but it can never tell us about reality because it is tautological. This is called defining logic, not skepticism.

Which, y'know, might just be why I specifically didn't use that argument, and specifically pointed out that I didn't use that argument.

You really DON'T read my posts, do you? You just search them for buzzwords and bring out a canned response. Common sense should have told you that Kant does not have any experience of alien life, and therefore his argument is not inductive.

Then for the love of Jeebus, tell me the deduction!

But it does.

So, are you just going to leave it at that? What's the argument?!

"Arguing in a Circle (sometimes referred to as 'begging the question'). Suppose that I argue that you should believe that God exists. You ask why. I say, 'Because the Bible says so.' You ask, 'Why should I believe what the Bible says?' I reply, 'Because it's the Word of God.' Note that all valid deductive argument can appear as arguing in a cricle, since the conclusion of each argument is contained in the premises. The difference is that in a valid argument the conclusion brings out some nontrivial feature of the premises. Essentially, arguing in a circle is not invalid, just trivial and unconvincing."

Well, you are right, they aren't invalid, because it's not the inference that is incorrect. It is the premises. The premises are as questionable as the conclusion. Here is the argument broken down a little:

I exist.
I think.
Therefore, I exist.

There is literally no way out of this circle, and you must realize that. Note that I'm not discounting my own existence, I'm just saying I can't prove it. Neither can you. That makes it questionable.

Me: I see a child. Therefore, I know there was a parent.
You: (could argue that it's an instance of cloning or that my vision could be mistaken or something, but instead...) You need to have the parent in order to have a child. You're just asserting that there is a parent. But there might not be a parent, in which case, there is no child. So you really, you're just making an assumption.
Me: But that's preposterous! I'm not using the parent to argue for the child. I see the child right in front of me.
You: You're argument is circular. You need to have the parent in order to get the child, so you must have assumed the parent to argue for the child, and now you're arguing for the parent from the child. Do you not understand what "begging the question means"?
Me: But I know about the child on quite different grounds. That knowledge doesn't rest on the argument at all.
You: [I have no idea what you say to this, but I'm sure you'll come up with something.]

That does not resemble any argument I have given. Now, if the child and the parent were the same thing, then this example might have meaning/relevance.

Wrong. Sorry. Please try again. Nothing in the definition of knowing requires you to be able to convince anyone else. You do know you think, you know it because there is no alternative. Ain't no way to deceive something that doesn't exist.

But I must exist to recognize that there isn't an alternative. You see, it's always assumed that "I exist." It cannot be an unquestionable conclusion because it is always a premise.

Funny you should say that, I'm studying qm at that moment. In any case, the question is a) irrelevant, and b) reveals once again your induction hang-up. I know that experience can never be made part of a purely mechanical model because mechanical by definition only describes behavior, and therefore excludes experience.

What, exactly, is your definition of experience?

I have. You didn't. As we can see:

What? I'm talking about the separation of mind and body. You have done nothing but assert that the separation exists. I told you this separation leaves one of the two (mind) beyond description. Yet, as if you can define them both, exclude the properties and behavior of one (body - mechanics) from applying to the other. You have no basis for doing such a thing.

You're confusing experience with volition. I'm not arguing against determinism. I am arguing that the computer doesn't feel anything when it hits the floor, but you feel something pushing it. I just spent several paragraphs on this.

That experience is merely feeling?

If you start with God as a creator interested in making and developing people as a hypothesis, you look for confirmation. Finding confirmation (there ARE people who experience things) you look for other possible explanations. Finding none, you consider whether an alternative explanation could ever be formulated. If you can establish that no other explanation is possible, the evidence goes in the God column.

Is that really what you do? Well then, might as well start with any hypothesis and place everything you can't explain as evidence for that hypothesis. This is just basically calling God that which you can't explain, which is exactly how a god of the gaps argument goes. It is of no value and doesn't explain anything.

By the way, you haven't established that other people have experience. You mentioned the problem that you can only observe their behavior, and therefore can't know if they experience. Then, I guess, you forgot about that problem? Anyways, since you can only observe their behavior, since you can't observe what goes on inside their heads, and since you don't know how they would have acted had some experience not affected them, you haven't established them as experiencing beings.

No, it isn't. Past events change the behavior of living things in general. That is not at all the same as saying that experience changes their behavior. You can have learning without experience.

Ah, but past events are experience.



I have noticed the increased offensiveness of your tone, and even the ad hominem to Oberon, and it isn't appealing. Please settle down.

(Not that Oberon wasn't guilty of the same thing.)

[Sage the Mage]

I'd listen to your own advice :)
The voice I got when reading your post was of a crazy yelling dude.

[Dementor]

TOTALLY off topic:

Cloud_Walker- Your avatar should be the paladin, but with the Meditation aura... he really would be a cloud walker then!

Anyway, please continue this thread which I throughly do not understand or see the point of.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hello, sorry for the delay..

To which we have my assertion, that that is all that we can know.

Ok, you seem to make this jump from out of nowhere. Up to this point, we settled on the notion that reason MUST direct us to a necessary prime mover. At this stage however, you're willing to just say "that's that", and forget the idea. At this point, a person has an obligation to explore one's options for this. Would you agree with that? Or would you be content with giving up the idea, and the ethics that goes along with this idea.

[Sage the Mage]

Ok, you seem to make this jump from out of nowhere. Up to this point, we settled on the notion that reason MUST direct us to a necessary prime mover. At this stage however, you're willing to just say "that's that", and forget the idea. At this point, a person has an obligation to explore one's options for this. Would you agree with that? Or would you be content with giving up the idea, and the ethics that goes along with this idea.
All that is irrelevant. To this point, we have went as far as we could with secure reason in simply positing a necessary first mover.
That best sums it up, don't you think?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

That best sums it up, don't you think?

Yes, but the question now remains "what will you do". Reason has brought you to the conclusion that there MUST be a God. Now what?

[Sage the Mage]

Yes, but the question now remains "what will you do". Reason has brought you to the conclusion that there MUST be a God. Now what?
Well techically reason never gets you there, just that there's a start. You just like to call the start God.

The answer to "Now what?" In short, whatever.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well techically reason never gets you there, just that there's a start. You just like to call the start God.


The start is all I had posited up to this stage. The term "God" i use is appropriate in my estimation. But the fact remains, the answer is not scepticism. It's real - there is a prime mover.


The answer to "Now what?" In short, whatever.

To which most posters here would agree with

*waits for the 3-4 joke posts to follow*

Why would you take that attitude? Knowledge of the existence of a prime mover, or "God" should change everything.

[Sage the Mage]

Why would you take that attitude? Knowledge of the existence of a prime mover, or "God" should change everything.
To which most posters here would agree with

*waits for the 3-4 joke posts to follow*
You answered your own question.

[Cloud_Walker]

I'd listen to your own advice :)
The voice I got when reading your post was of a crazy yelling dude.

I am just stating things. Except maybe when I asked for Kant's deduction, then I was just a little despondent.

Cloud_Walker- Your avatar should be the paladin, but with the Meditation aura... he really would be a cloud walker then!

Hehe, well, I might if I didn't completely uninstall D2 last year. I loved the game, and have fond memories of it, but I'm also done with it. Plus, I like the gray.

[Abercromby]

Um... wasn't this thread called the morality of murder? :scratch:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Woah thx for resurrecting a 3 month old thread, and failing to realize that 22 pages of arguments cannot remain static.

[Sage the Mage]

I must have left you in a state of confusion though.