User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 97

  1. #61
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    My perception of the worlds of God, godliness, and spirituality is... people with Fe have an easier time recognising God as real. Seems like, ENFJs and INTPs in particular. (And moving even further out on the limb, if TJs are believers, it's usually with some mechanistic hypothesis, God as Prime Mover.)

    Faith being faith, proof is nice but beside the active point. So really the principle path to God is feeling, right?


    It's not too terrible to say God is alienated feeling. ("Alienated" in the Marxian sense.) It's not the same as saying God doesn't exist. It's the same as saying feeling has been rendered "out there" and objectified. And saying that that feeling is about something real, that's faith, no?

  2. #62
    it's a nuclear device antireconciler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Intj
    Enneagram
    5w4 so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    867

    Default

    There are actually a lot of things here worth replying to. Great comments.

    I also will usually try to avoid the word "God", but I will consider it as:

    that order or power which informs our consciousness with the will to structure and to harmonize, to promote life, balance, communication, and a transparent world reflecting ourselves, and self-refinement into alignment with this same structure. It is the force and light of reason, which through will to exist as self-aware, manifests itself in exteriority (the world) and finite embodiment (ourselves) in order to return to itself in perfect, absolute knowledge.

    ~ a n t i r e c o n c i l e r
    What is death, dies.
    What is life, lives.

  3. #63
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Eck probably isn't down with the idea of a messiah at all...let alone the work of one.

    Does it matter though? Lots of other believers don't put much stock in the whole messiah thing either so it doesn't seem like it's terribly relevant to the question of what god is. IMO

    (Apologies to you Eck if I'm out of line)
    Is the question what God is, or what a god is?

    If it's the former, then the question concerning the nature of the work of the messiah is relevant. Indeed, this question cuts to the core of the most basic issues that divide theists.

    For the purposes of this post, let's assume that "theism" denotes the metaphysical position that only some is eternal, and that which is eternal brought into being that which isn't eternal. In this sense, there is agreement between all believers in a god. Once the preliminary, intellectual hurdles before theism are crossed, the next major obstacle is the problem of evil, and how one conceives of God in view of the problem of evil will subsequently shape how he conceives of the need, (or lack thereof), of a messiah and the work the messiah is to do.

    Thus, how Eck answers my question--should he choose to--will reveal much of what he thinks of God, and this will better enable me to give rational responses to his questions.

  4. #64
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut View Post
    St. Anselm's ontological argument? I have to admit that argument is one of the few that is tough to beat
    What? St. Anselm's ontological argument was like, the first thing we learned to refute in day 1 of philosophy class in college.

    For the viewers, the ontological argument basically says:

    1) There are two possible forms of existence--a thing/idea may exist in physical reality, or it may "exist" only in the mind, as an idea.
    2) Obviously, it would be greater for any given thing to truly exist in physical reality than to exist purely in the mind, since if it exists in reality it necessarily also simultaneously exists as an idea.
    3) If God is, by definition, infinitely great and totally perfect in every way, God must necessarily exist in physical reality as well as in the mind--such a perfect being existing only as an idea would necessarily make him less than perfectly great, which is impossible.


    Wow, seriously?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #65
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    What? St. Anselm's ontological argument was like, the first thing we learned to refute in day 1 of philosophy class in college.

    For the viewers, the ontological argument basically says:

    1) There are two possible forms of existence--a thing/idea may exist in physical reality, or it may "exist" only in the mind, as an idea.
    2) Obviously, it would be greater for any given thing to truly exist in physical reality than to exist purely in the mind, since if it exists in reality it necessarily also simultaneously exists as an idea.
    3) If God is, by definition, infinitely great and totally perfect in every way, God must necessarily exist in physical reality as well as in the mind--such a perfect being existing only as an idea would necessarily make him less than perfectly great, which is impossible.


    Wow, seriously?
    As I understand it, premise 2 is the most problematic.

    You said you learned to refute this argument. Do you mind explaining why you think this argument isn't sound?

  6. #66
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    Do you mind explaining why you think this argument isn't sound?
    Are you for real ..?


    imagine the ugliest person possible,
    for that person's ugliness to be really really perfect, it'd had to exist in reality too because it's better than exist only in mind
    Therefore a person that ugly does exist.

    The whole thing isn't even logical, it basically states than an idea is more real than reality when it goes for superlatives but give absolutly no structural reason why it should be so. It's like saying that you have red and blue, and when red is really really perfect, it becomes blue too.
    So unicorns could exist if they were the most perfect horses ever. Which in my mind, they are. So awesome, unicorns do exist in reality too!

    Mom, Dad, I'm harry freaking potter!
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  7. #67
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Well, I have some theories, but people aren't going to like them much. :P

    I think god is a product of power hungry individuals. Shamans, druids, and such of old.

    It's a means to answer unanswerable questions. And gives people the power of influence over others. It is that, the birth of language/communication and 'greater understanding' that eventually shaped into religion as we know it today.

    The idea of God. The omniscience. Seems to be based on the idea of 'everything'. The past, present and future. The whole of the universe and beyond. This idea of an absolute balance. A sense of 'nature', is the root of entities such as a God. So that god is not so much an entity. But made into an entity by us humans, because the context of a God. The idea of everything. Is beyond our comprehension. So to be able to comprehend such fully, it must be an entity, a sentient being, far greater than us, that governs all of nature.

    Even though logic would state that there's no entity of God. God is all around us, but not as a sentient being.

    So call it marketing or whatever, but at some point people found out that you can influence and manipulate beings into worshipping something. Into worshipping you. The power of suggestion is possibly the most powerful ally one can have. Even now in this era. But most definatly in older, more primitive societies.

    That is God in a nutshell to me. And more often than not I am ridiculed for it. Which I find odd. Since I've never said to anyone that this is what they should believe in. Yet people keep trying to tell me what I should believe in. Well, that power of suggestion is lost on me.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    What? St. Anselm's ontological argument was like, the first thing we learned to refute in day 1 of philosophy class in college.

    For the viewers, the ontological argument basically says:

    1) There are two possible forms of existence--a thing/idea may exist in physical reality, or it may "exist" only in the mind, as an idea.
    2) Obviously, it would be greater for any given thing to truly exist in physical reality than to exist purely in the mind, since if it exists in reality it necessarily also simultaneously exists as an idea.
    3) If God is, by definition, infinitely great and totally perfect in every way, God must necessarily exist in physical reality as well as in the mind--such a perfect being existing only as an idea would necessarily make him less than perfectly great, which is impossible.


    Wow, seriously?
    Thank you Gaunilo.

    Nevertheless, there have been several refutations to the fool that have been written that aren't half bad ...you might want to look at some of those.

    Nice job capturing the argument though. I would have given that a 5/5.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    As I understand it, premise 2 is the most problematic.

    You said you learned to refute this argument. Do you mind explaining why you think this argument isn't sound?
    There's a piece by a fellow named Gaunilo, a benedictine monk who wrote a response shortly after St. Anselm put his lovely argument out there for the world to see. Most believers think the response misses the point in the same way that all empirical arguments do. They argue that existence implies some sort of material reality (which as you know isn't a requirement for many folks of faith) that is inconsistent with the nature of a god . This is why the ontological argument is one of the better philosophical arguments. Unfortunately the believer is still stuck with the burden of describing an immaterial being that has an existence...no small task. There are a number of famous mathematicians that have tried, however. See below.

    Gaunilo of Marmoutiers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

  10. #70
    Supreme Allied Commander Take Five's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    925

    Default

    I've never found St Anselm's argument that convincing.

    I would not say God is alienated feeling, nor would I say the people with strong Fe have a leg up on faith.
    Johari Nohari

    "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. "--Niccolo Machiavelli

Similar Threads

  1. What is the significance of this dream, do you suppose?
    By Oberon in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-23-2010, 07:31 PM
  2. Who, or what, is this "God"?
    By Iriohm in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 08-04-2010, 09:09 PM
  3. What is the god of this world?
    By Risen in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-23-2010, 01:43 AM
  4. [INTP] What is this fun you speak of?
    By Cerpin_Taxt in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 12:46 PM
  5. What is this indicative of?
    By Ezra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 11:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO