User Tag List

First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 208

  1. #51
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Can you elaborate on this a bit?
    Yes. We were intelligently designed for our DNA to naturally posses and develope traits of curiosity. These Gods were, more than likely, implanted here by our intelligent designer for us to eventually evolve our curiosity traits. Nothing is perfect. Even our intelligent designer. That should explain her/his/its timing of when all these Gods were implanted to, eventually, be questioned givin the amount of scientific knowledge available and curiosity at any givin time in history. Notice how it's only lately that science and tech have made it possible for a much more vast amount of people to question it?
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

  2. #52
    Senior Member Sacrator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Science is magic if a person manipulates Gods creation they should be killed for a abominable act against God. So if your using this computer please kill yourself now and you might be forgiven by his highness ... im jk i sound like a radical Mennonite well i guess they are all radical.

  3. #53
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sacrator View Post
    Science is magic if a person manipulates Gods creation they should be killed for a abominable act against God. So if your using this computer please kill yourself now and you might be forgiven by his highness ... im jk i sound like a radical Mennonite well i guess they are all radical.
    We were intelligently designed to perceive them as radical
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

  4. #54
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    I apologize that I'm unable to respond to every query, although I think I can respond to several by bringing attention to an important point:

    Many people are, incorrectly, equating "exist" with "being composed of matter or, by relation, energy". Even if God had no material existence of any sort, if He exists He would still exist, which would mean that He was part of reality. By the very definition, nothing can exist outside of reality, the sum of all existents.

    People, in their inability to contemplate the infinite, always imagine reality as the black dot in the center of the white sheet of paper at the beginning of the "Big Bang" videos they show in 101 classes. This is incorrect. The paper would exist. Reality cannot be suspended in non-reality.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  5. #55
    Senior Member LostInNerSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    This is a useless assertion. My saying "God does not exist. God does not have a very real tangible impact on all of our lives, including yours, whether or not you choose to admit it" has as much internal validity as your statement. It's a useless comment in a rational argument.

    I find it more productive, when talking about unverifiable beliefs, to use "I" in the comments and not "you."
    It's not a useless comment. The concept of god is alive in peoples minds. When someone talks to god and then interprets a bolt of lightening as an answer, who answers the question? The person answers their own question. They are either too stupid to realize it or their belief is so strong it blocks other rational explanations. The power of belief is an awesome force.

    Don't think your life is affected by god? Think again. The issue of abortion is affects millions of lives. That is a religious argument. If the religious right ever get their way it will have a big impact on millions of lives.

    President Bush was heavily influenced by God. How many of his decisions were influenced by his faith? A lot. He admitted it. Was the iraq war decision at all influenced by his faith? He blocked a lot of science because of his faith.

  6. #56
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Loosely:

    Pantheism = Nature/Universe is God (no more, no less)
    Panentheism = God is Nature/Universe but transcends it timelessly as well
    Jennifer, excellent question. I consider the pantheism redundant. If God is reality, why have two words for precisely the same thing? As for panentheism, time states are irrelevant. Time is something we made up, to put it in simple terms. If something were to exist separate from another thing in any capacity, be it our notion of "time" or any other, we would have two entities which would need to exist (or to adhere as SolitaryWalker always phrases it) within something, as they could not be suspended within non-reality.

    Incidentally, I'm beginning to understand why he always uses the term "adhere" rather than "exist".

    Note: If people are interested in discussing the positive and negative elements and influence of religion and spiritual belief, please start another thread for that purpose, as it is not the purpose of this thread.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  7. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9/5?
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I apologize that I'm unable to respond to every query, although I think I can respond to several by bringing attention to an important point:

    Many people are, incorrectly, equating "exist" with "being composed of matter or, by relation, energy". Even if God had no material existence of any sort, if He exists He would still exist, which would mean that He was part of reality. By the very definition, nothing can exist outside of reality, the sum of all existents.

    People, in their inability to contemplate the infinite, always imagine reality as the black dot in the center of the white sheet of paper at the beginning of the "Big Bang" videos they show in 101 classes. This is incorrect. The paper would exist. Reality cannot be suspended in non-reality.
    This is where I disagree. I don't think the paper would exist. I think the universe can expand without needing something to expand into. So I agree that there's a sense in which the illustration is incorrect, but my way of seeing it doesn't run into the infinite regress.

    Also, I apologize if I was presumptuous about thinking your version of reality seemed like it was limited to material reality. It just seemed like your assumptions and language about reality come from a material paradigm and don't particularly make sense to me outside of it (e.g., what does it mean to speak of immaterial existents to be 'suspended' in some larger set that constitutes reality? Are you just using metaphorical language? I'm not sure I understand).
    "There are no answers, only choices."
    -Jennifer

  8. #58
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott View Post
    This is where I disagree. I don't think the paper would exist. I think the universe can expand without needing something to expand into. So I agree that there's a sense in which the illustration is incorrect, but my way of seeing it doesn't run into the infinite regress.
    What is this universe of your mind's eye expanding into? You can't dismiss this fundamental question. You cannot have reality surrounded by non-reality.

    Also, I apologize if I was presumptuous about thinking your version of reality seemed like it was limited to material reality. It just seemed like your assumptions and language about reality come from a material paradigm and don't particularly make sense to me outside of it (e.g., what does it mean to speak of immaterial existents to be 'suspended' in some larger set that constitutes reality? Are you just using metaphorical language? I'm not sure I understand).
    Insomuch as language was designed by we, finite beings, to describe the finite elements of our finite experience of reality, I agree that they tend to come up short in discussions of this type. To answer your question, I'd say that I'm trying to do my best with the tools that are available to me.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  9. #59
    Senior Member TopherRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    2w3 so/sx
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Surprisingly, I actually don't even feel like explaining this one. There are lots of university level intro to philosophy courses and wikipedia summaries to explain this one to you, and if you can't piece it together then I have no interest in trying.
    You insult me for no good reason. Also, by not showing me the logic behind your argument, you destablize your position. Therefore, until you can come up with solid logic to the contrary, I have to declare your argument less than logical--an argument based on faith. Either put up your sword and fight, or go post in the Graveyard.
    I think religious people have every right to believe and practice the way they want to--but when you try to bring something like faith into any logical discussion, you've already lost.
    That's where our paths diverge. You see the OP's argument as logical. However, if you follow the collective teachings and texts that Christians claim to base their profile of God on, you'd understand that their God has always been, with no start, and no end. Therefore...according to the Bible, the supposed authority on the Christian God...there is no issue with existence as He is existence, and he has always been, just as I argued previously.

    Do I have proof this is true? No. Do you have proof that an infinite God doesn't exist? No. Therefore, you must either conceed that your argument is based on faith...or you must prove me wrong with facts.

    Because Mycroft started the thread in a purely logic context, so I was deconstructing the common logical issues with God.
    Demonstrate to the NF how the hell any of what he said was based on logic? Isn't logic based in reality? How can you prove to me what Mycroft said was real? Just the same as I can't prove the Christian God to you.

    I never said there aren't other reasons to believe in God--it seems to work really well for some people and I know that internal logical consistency is not really an important value to them, so that's fine. I wouldn't take faith away from these people because I think it does more good than harm in their lives.
    Those Christians who bother to think see this as much a viable path as yours. Unfortunately, logicians on both sides can become rather stubborn in their reasoning after they've accepted something as an absolute truth. Pretty soon you start looking for things to justify your position on both sides and neither of you has a shred of real evidence.

    Well, that's your interpretation. Unfortunately there are 954653 other interpretations from people who claim just as surely that they are "THE REAL CHRISTIANS!" and now, oops, nobody has any real idea what Jesus actually meant. There's problem #1.
    Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia OH LOOK! WIKIPEDIA HAS AN ARTICLE!!! That means, if you are able to reference it, that there's obviously enough consensus to have a Faith (and hey, look, I even included a LINK for you). There are varying views everywhere, but to be Christians, you have to follow Christ, and believe in his mission, his miracles, and his claim to divinity, no matter what you decide to call yourself! Obviously, there's enough to go on to have a philosophical, non-logical argument about faith on both sides.

    Oh by the way, my friend Jimmy and eleven of his friends told me they saw the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that they've all been touched by his noodly appendage. I have since converted to the faith.
    Nice. Save some sacred s'ghetti for me!!

    Srsly though their story was really passionate and elaborate! They didn't really have any evidence or any particular reason I should believe them beyond hearsay, but that's where my faith comes in--I don't need any reason to believe; accepting something on faith is accepting that it can't be taken on its own merits.
    Yes. Just like the OP.

    sigh. Ok man, go to wikipedia and type in "Russell's Teapot" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Invisible Pink Unicorn" or a host of other basic thought exercises that discredit the idea of arbitrary faith.
    I'll take "Errant Philosophy" for $200, Alex.

    Unfortunately that doesn't make faith any less inherently illogical.
    I agree. Once again, "Errant Philosophy" for $200, Alex. Why don't you just admit the OP is not based on logic.

    No, but if you had the background in science+a little intuition it'd be pretty obvious why that argument is terrible.
    PWFFFFH. WOW! Really, how?

    I remember when Chris Hitchens (admittedly a drunken asshole, but a smart one) went on Sean Hannity's show to discuss God, and Hannity rattled off that "OMG TEH WORLD IS TOO COMPLEX TO BE NOT DESIGNED LOL", which reduces essentially to, "Biology is real hard and I don't get it...DOGMATIC EXPLANATION GO!"
    No, creating the original biology from goo is real hard and I can't seem to figure it out. Oh Gah....I mean, oh illogical philosophical premise!

    Hitchens's response, which I will use here now: "You sound as if you've never read any of the arguments against your position."
    Right back at ya.
    Love is the point.

  10. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9/5?
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    What is this universe of your mind's eye expanding into? You can't dismiss this fundamental question. You cannot have reality surrounded by non-reality.
    I don't see why it has to expand into anything. When you talk about my minds eye, it makes it sound like I need to be visualizing it, and of course to visualize the whole of reality I'd have to abstract out and see it in where it exists in a larger context. So essentially, it seems to me that the space or whatever that it's expanding into is more a construct of our process of abstraction than something that needs to 'be' in some sense.

    I don't see why something can't increase in size without there needing to be some existing thing outside of it into which it's expanding, but on some level it could just be that we're talking about what-is differently. I guess I think my way is at least valid enough that I wouldn't feel obligated to accept conclusions coming from your way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Insomuch as language was designed by we, finite beings, to describe the finite elements of our finite experience of reality, I agree that they tend to come up short in discussions of this type. To answer your question, I'd say that I'm trying to do my best with the tools that are available to me.
    That's fair. Though due to the good possibility that such language doesn't accurately relate to all of reality, I again don't feel particularly tied to its conclusions, and I especially wouldn't want to rule out a possibility on the basis of it (like theism). How's that for P open-endedness?
    "There are no answers, only choices."
    -Jennifer

Similar Threads

  1. If objective value does not exist, then why become an atheist?
    By Studmuffin23 in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-10-2015, 01:16 AM
  2. ADHD Does Not Exist
    By JAVO in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-18-2014, 07:41 PM
  3. America does not exist within its borders.
    By Haphazard in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 02-17-2010, 03:24 AM
  4. The place where spontaneity does not exist
    By Virtual ghost in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-16-2009, 04:07 PM
  5. Justice does not exist
    By Sahara in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 08-03-2007, 01:24 PM

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