 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 290 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613474 Today 12 Topics 127502 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
deep within testicles...XD |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Why do you talk about god? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
He's the most dangerous game. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It only looks like dangerous...I think. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Because God is not able to be defined. He is defined not by what he is, but by what he isn't. The law of identity defines the essence of existence: to be is to be something, a thing is what it is; and leads to the fundamental principle of all action, the law of causality. The law of causality states that a thing's actions are determined not by chance, but by its nature, i.e., by what it is. Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics. For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity. Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing. Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . . “God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.” |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Cartesian skepticism is the opposite of faith. It requires that all things be doubted if not logical. Logic is the opposite of faith. I don't need to cope with this because I embrace this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Where Descartes gets it wrong is that perception CAN be logically defined. As the only philosopher of reason of the 20th century defined it: "Man’s senses are his only direct cognitive contact with reality and, therefore, his only source of information. Without sensory evidence, there can be no concepts; without concepts, there can be no language; without language, there can be no knowledge and no science." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Troutmask you forget to factor in the history behind the documents pertaining to beliefs in God. Faith is only mentioned in the Old Testament twice and used in a different sense which means 'truth' or 'verifiable'. It is when Christ enters the picture that 'faith' becomes the meaning which it is today. Faith in Jesus Christ that he is God's only begotten son and the only way to heaven. Science explains life, it has no bearing in metaphysics but only to explain how our physical world is composed and regulated etc. "He's completely right. Believing in anything like "God" is not just idiotic (as the existence of "God" violates the Axiom of Existence {A=A}), but also immoral, because it is taken on faith (a vice), rather than reason (a virtue). " Introducing spirituality, God and religion to science is the idiotic mishap here. Science ponders what life is made of, the mathematics, the compositions. It is an artform which shows the innards of all things. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't know I'll let Glasse fill in for me about the science/metaphysics debate. I am not opposed to science as well as theology, they're both worthy subjects for further investigation. I am with Noam Chomsky on this one. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Noam Chomsky is a windbag, and apparently, so are you. Philosophy is a science - it is the science of understanding the nature of things. Religion is a primitive, canned philosophy. Thousands of years ago, before Aristotle, it was perhaps the best philosophy around. But there is no excuse for anybody to live by religion now, in the year 2010, especially since Aristotle died in 322BC. Nevertheless, I made no "scientific" claim (as per academic standards) on God's existence - merely a logical one. You made no effort to address my point that the only correct way to live is through reason, and that man's mind is his only tool for survival. You completely circumvented the evidence I provided. If you wish, I'll let you forget that you completely ignored my rational evidence, and you can instead provide me with evidence that backs up your claim that spirituality is a rational philosophy, and a possible proper aspect of one's moral character. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Your mistake is in thinking of God as just another thing or entity, subject to the workings and limitations of the spatial and temporal universe. God transcends "reality" - a good analogy is that the universe is a thought within the mind of God. Indeed, that a = a is universally true and knowable is a consequence of God's nature - He is the logos - the "I AM" which is the original statement of the law of identity. Nontheists cannot account for this universality of logic. The best they can do is say that's just the way it is. Their worldview cannot have telos, so there can be no purpose underlying and causing the consistent operation of the laws of logic and their universal applicability. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No i'd rather not have a worthless debate with someone who already thinks i'm not "intelligent" enough to have a conversation with. I have much better things to do with my time. Noam Chomsky is far from a windbag, he has taken the time to educate American citizens on baffling matters such as foriegn policies, health care, geo-politics in general. You're lucky enough to think rationally in today's world where people are not so lucky. I don't know how you got to the mindset you did and how you managed to acquire all the information you have, i respect that at least maybe you've wanted to gather all the information you have because you want to inform others as to maybe help someone. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Man’s senses are his only direct cognitive contact with reality and, therefore, his only source of information." But that merely begs the question - how do you know that your senses and your mind are conveying an accurate perception of the world, or indeed that there is a world to be perceived outside of your mind? And to call man's senses a cognitive contact seems to be another question-begging or at the very least a category error. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't understand. how can anyone even discuss the concept of "god"? it is indefinable, is it not? to have a fruitful conversation with someone and discuss something, it is a good idea to define what you're talking about, am i right? chomsky was mentioned in this thread. read his linguistics. define god, you fucking 15th century hermits. FUCK THE FUCK OFF ALREADY!? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Dude fuck God. and Fuck all of you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fleetmouse is right. Consider that you are inside a video game, wondering what is on the other side of the screen. You run around in your little map, and have had thousands of years to understand all the mechanics of each location, item, pickup, and so forth. You even have been able to study the code of the engine behind the game. If you heard about the real world outside, would you try to measure the mechanics of the actual sky, based on the mechanics of the sky in the map in the game? What does the distance it takes to go from one end to the other of Blood Gulch on Halo have to do with the actual distance it takes to walk an entire football field? While one simulates the other, do they operate on the same system at all? What does flying the banshee or driving the warthog have to do with operating an actual car, or an airplane. Sure they both have an 'accelerator' and a 'brake', but when broken down are they the same thing? How can a finite mind comprehend the infinite? Logic is a measuring tool which is bound to the finite. Can you stretch a measuring tape to the end of the universe? Can you catch the end of it as it expands beyond the last point you measured, before you even have a chance to jot down the measurement? Would you use the same measuring tape to measure the temperature of water, or the humidity in the air? Of course not, they each have their own measuring tools, but what tool on Earth, in the sky, or under the water can measure infinity? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I just want to set it straight that i think i'm an idiot after reading this thread. no harm done, troutmask was right, i'm a windbag, i surrender my stupidity. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
too much? :( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Jesus says he is teaching in parables because he does not want everyone to understand him, only those who are his followers. Those outside the group are not meant to understand them. Thus one must already be committed to following Jesus to fully understand his message and that without that commitment one will never fully understand him or be helped by his message." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, I have not made that mistake. I am defining God as all followers of God choose to define Him. Reread my post if you missed it. If God is above reality, then my point has already been proven. glasse made a similarly stupid remark, using measuring tapes as the analogy. Little does he know that by demonstrating how absurd this manufactured premise is, he negates his own premise. As I've already said, nothing can be infinite. To be infinite would be to go beyond the possibilities of reality, and if something isn't within the scope of reality, then it is absurd. God is an absurd concept. There exist plenty of people whose realities I wouldn't trust. That doesn't mean that reality is subjective and that some altruist's every whim can be taken as legitimate. Reality is objective, regardless of how blind one's senses are, or how mentally deranged the observer happens to be. I know that my senses are portraying an accurate view of reality because I've come to accept the logical axioms by which every person should, objectively, live their lives. I know that one's life should be based upon one's own rational, long-term, self-interest, and that man's only rational method of doing so is by utilizing his reasonable mind. If reason is your guide, then faith and non-logic has no place in your life. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Your logical axioms are exactly that. Your logical axioms. Not mine. Not pulsetwit or whatever his name is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you know, I'm at work, and had to find something quick. A wiki article seemed ok, but I saw that after I posted it. I disagree with that interpretation. Did I use the halo parable (lol) because I thought it would confuse everyone, or because I thought most people could relate to it? Jesus' parables often had to do with farming, fishing, or other things that related to the people at the time. He used illustrations to stir them to thinking, so they would seek further. If He was like, Then Satan comes and snatches away the word .. .. what's Satan?.. ..oh, well he is this non-coporeal spirit that is kind of like a person but also kind of like a force, as in powers and principalities, who has fallen and is now evil.. ..what?.. You see I am the Word, the living Logos.. ..huh?... So he taught in ways that related to them, that they could actually understand. However His disciples had been born again, and God was able to give to them supernatural understanding of the things of Heaven, so He could be more straightforward about it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
when i'm at work i'm the one who jumps in this kind of things (less advanced) and say something like 'suckh-my dik' |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're a philosophical yokel. A farting bumpkin. Have you ever read any works by real philosophers? If and when you do, you'll be ashamed. Rand is to philosophy what the guy is to physics. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
j/k i enjoyed some lines especially fleetmouse byw |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
my username pulseclock. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*my username is pulseclock. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
