 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 427 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614196 Today 0 Topics 127547 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We know what wisdom is, and we know what perfect is. Why can't we combine them? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
because wisdom is IN perfection. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
giginger: Oh please no! I was only kidding! *sniffle* I'll even say sorry! DM: Our senses aren't wrong, they're not amplified enough to prove existence on their own, but with assistance from man-made equipment, which have been created by our senses, amplify them to the point at which we can prove what is real, or nay. Therefore: The 5 proven senses, you know what they are, are proven. Science, discovered through these senses, is proven, and in being proven, disproves a "6th sense", a "devine enlightenment" or whatever proof religious people chose to describe their ignorance and will to believe in whatever deity they need to fear themselves into acting within a code of rules which is morally just, or to justify their chosen actions morally. Me, I just use my common sense and instincts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's soo much I could add to this dicussion. But I won't cause i'm lazy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
if our senses aren't sofisticated enough to prove existence on their own.. how to put this... have you ever seen something that is more complex than its creator? Not even humans have created anything more advanced than itself... I don't really believe we ever will either... So.. if our senses aren't sofisticated enough, and if they aren't accurate enough, there is not really much sense in believing that something they've created is more trustworthy, is there?! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it seems that the "scientific" party always is more bent on convincing their opponent doesn't it?! there are people who believe in more than science here, but they're all too lazy to post. I'm just keeping this going 'cause I actually LOVE discussions.. their structure, how different people argue, when someone goes from real arguments to hacking on their opponent (mappatazee is a good example on last page)... of course, I also mean much of what I'm saying. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Rostasky: DM was heading in the right direction, when he said that wisdom is in perfection, but he missed out one small but important factor - wisdom is in perfection of character. Now, the problem we have here is that the perfect being could not have wisdom, because to have wisdom, one would have the need to understand human emotions in able to deal with them, and the only way to understand human emotion, is to have it. But in having human emotion, also ambitions, etc., brings on human greed, selfishness etc. Therefore, perfection is unattainable. But in saying that, penultimate profficiency (stated, and widely acccepted as the next-best thing to perfection) is not. or, b+e = 0p where b=being, e=emotion, p=perfection b+e may= P, if u=1, where P=penultimate proficiency, u=understanding for the math geeks. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
DM: Good point. It's a matter of proficiency vs. perfection though. related to my above argument. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well.. that wouldn't be a problem, since a perfect being would be able to understand human emotiong WITHOUT having it, or maybe it could have it and understand it, but NOT get affected by it. The thing with perfection is that if you define a problem for it, it evades the problem simply because it is perfect, so hacking at the idea of perfection simply isn't possible... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And therefore, the existence of God becomes yet another matter of opinion where we're all right, and none of us go to hell, unless we believe in, but totally disagree with a god. Therefore, everyone's happy, even the people that go to hell, 'cuz they did it for their beliefs man! Bah. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, that IS the easy way out. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this thread would be much more popular if it featured little cartoons that illustrated each poster's ideas instead of all these words... btw, how old is the universe? next, how long have human beings been systematically investigating existence and reality? we may be on the last step, but it's the longest step by far... for one, religion is a security blanket. for another, science is a security blanket. one thing is certain: they both wake up naked in bed with the other... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This thread is fuckin' huge. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And off topic. Shouldn't the debate be about value systems of behavior, not the existance of God? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Don't respond to that. Let's just end it here. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
off topic is such a bad word... evolved is a better one. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
OK... I do philosophy so I know where you're going with this. If something has previously fooled us then we bear that in mind in the future and do not completely trust it. Our senses have fooled us before, for example when we have seen someone and thought it was someone else. We should therefore not completely trust them. You know that your Descartes argument doesn't work because all of Descartes' arguments can be ripped to shreds. All though the idea of a unicorn is a complex idea, so is that of a God. We can think of all of our idea of God: loving, caring, knowing etc. and multiply them by a huge number and this would be getting us close to imagining a God. This huge number and these properties are familiar ideas to us. This could be used to argue for how we know God, without him necessarily existing. There is another argument for God's existence: Everything is better in existence than thought alone. If I imagine a chocolate cake, it's pretty good but if it actually existed it'd be much better. God is tautologous with perfection. If God did not exist then he would not be perfect as there could be something better than him, something with all his properties, but in existence. I guess that's quite a good one, but again it can also be destroyed. As I said before, there are equal numbers of arguments for and against God and neither side has yet been successful in proving it's arguments |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think its one in the same, since the values we would be discussing would have been religiously induced. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
drunken mastah - i think you're a smart fellow - you're swell. but your arguments here are incredibly flawed, so much so that to try and explain why, one would have to spend hours. and i don't want to bother. most of this thread is tangent after tangent of half-truths, flawed reasoning and subjective statements. it's not worth trying to save it by making it into an actual debate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*thinks about chocolate cake that god baked* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it'd have chocolate chips:) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Whether or not a theory can be ripped to shreds isn't even debateable. All theories can be ripped to shreds.. they ARE theories after all, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. yes, I see your point about multiplying the attributes we already know to create "god," but I can only emphasise once more that we're talking PERFECTION.. you can't multiply something incomplete to create something complete.. you'll just get hundreds of incomplete things.. now, since all things in this world are less than the perfect idea of it (this includes metaphysical things like kindness and care and wisdom and such), it would be impossible to create perfection with synthesis. I agree with the rest.. we can't prove perfection (god), nor can we disprove it (unless it mainfests itself to everyone on the entire planet), which is what got me into this in the beginning... Distrusting things just because you haven't experienced them is.. weird... As I said before: none of us have ever experienced the moon, thus we don't have any evidence of "moon." (philosophy is great! Discussions are great! how far along in the education are you?) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yes, I know I'm not good with words (I'm good at spotting rhetorics and logical errors (locic as in inter-argumental/language relations , not as in the regular "yeah, that makes sense" meaning of the word), but not when it comes to myself), which often leads to people misunderstanding because I spend too much time describing an example which I'm using wrong (it's intended in another way than it is interpreted by others). I tried breaking what I mean down in the last paragraph of #01424455. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I started it in September, so not been doing it for too long to be honest with you. It is great but a bit annoying when you realise there is just stuff you cannot know and probably never will know. You just can't even talk about God in a sensible way because at the minute it is just disproving each opposing argument. But for some reason I do still believe. I reckon the fact my Philosophy teacher does, after studying all arguments of either side is quite interesting and secures my beliefs a bit more. I would however never be narrow minded about it or try and enforce it on anyone else. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, I've been at it for one semester too, and I love it... should've been finished with my third semester if it hadn't been for army/civil duty, though... what's the stupidest idea you've heard so far? That epicurean neverending party is one of my favorites! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I thought he was a bit more modern than the rest of the Greeks. To me, at least. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i was walking home today and got supposing how i would feel if i did believe we were being watched over by a deity. i imagined it would be a wonderful fantasy, so mysterious, a totally different world to the one i live in. the idea seems so unreal.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
