User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 100

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Well God forbid anybody do that!
    Well, the funny thing is God forbids nothing. You can do whatever you want, but that does not mean it is true. Deception can easily lead a person into an existence dense with false pretenses.

    EDIT: "The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden."

    Thanks again, Mr. Chesterton

    In this light God lets you will your path, however the Commandments stand in place for the reason of avoiding mortal sin, thus separation from God.

  2. #42
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Okay, now show me objectively that your idea of God actually reflects reality.
    Your sensual appeal is not objective. It is subjective. To "prove" God would claim objectivity, which a human cannot.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Okay, now show me objectively that your idea of God actually reflects reality.
    Try reading the Summa Theologica for starters. I don't think I could communicate these ideas with you because I believe we are of different mindsets.

    Summa Theologica Index

    Good luck though, the version selling on Amazon at the moment is over 3,000 pages.

  4. #44
    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 Nyx View Post
    Well, the funny thing is God forbids nothing. You can do whatever you want, but that does not mean it is true. Deception can easily lead a person into an existence dense with false pretenses.
    Doesn't God forbid butt sex though??
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #45
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nyx View Post
    I am well aware of Hitler's occult interest... and by definition asserts gnosis, or becoming God.

    I would continue to answer objections here, but I will stop because doing so would take countless volumes and I simply do not have the time to do so. Also, I do not think anything I will say we be taken with any consideration and will be rejected immediately, consciously or subconsciously.

    Unfortunately, some people will never see the light and live their lives in a vain attempt at affirming their personal truth as the answer, but what they do not realize is their logic is self-destructive. They are living in limbo, trying to reconcile their innate desire for Truth with their personal fatalistic beliefs.

    EDIT: No, those people are not trying to "prove" metaphysical a priori. Proof is a product of human arrogance in regards to that... Proof is only useful and applicable in fields of empiric knowledge.
    If they arent trying to prove synthetic a priori then they are at the least asserting them.

    As for your positions being rejected without charity, I think you are projecting your perceptions of atheists onto people in the thread. My path (over years): catholic --> ignorant agnostic --> born again Christian --> strong atheist --> agnostic. You wont find me asserting empiricism or rationalism to an extreme. As Kant noted, "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind". A consideration/synthesis of both are required. I leave room for faith. I dont think i'm being uncharitable by observing that personal metaphysical beliefs are as true as 2 + 2 = 4. The ability to share these personal metaphysical beliefs is what logic actually tends to pose problems for...though in some instances i believe its possible.

  6. #46
    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 Mystic Tater View Post
    Your sensual appeal is not objective. It is subjective. To "prove" God would claim objectivity, which a human cannot.
    Which leaves us with a convenient little circular logic: "God exists because God exists." Solid.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #47
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Which leaves us with a convenient little circular logic: "God exists because God exists." Solid.
    Its only invalid reasoning if there is an argument being reasoned through. Invalid reasoning doesn't prove that the conclusion is false. Having personal a priori synthetic is not inherently a fault in reasoning.

  8. #48
    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 Babylon Candle View Post
    Its only invalid reasoning if there is an argument being reasoned through. Invalid reasoning doesn't prove that the conclusion is false. Having personal a priori synthetic is not inherently a fault in reasoning.
    Nope, just a fault in perception.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #49
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Not to derail this thread too far, but...

    Can we deny moral normativity without denying epistemic normativity?

    consider the following argument:

    (1) A-->B
    (2) A
    -------
    (3) B

    Ought we to affirm the truth of (3) above? Sure, someone could deny, even given the truth of (1) and (2), that (3) is true, but should he? Or, is there some objective, mind independent feature of reality that guarantees the truth of (3) given the truth of (1) and (2), regardless of any agents' belief about (3)?

    It seems that if we want to maintain any form of epistemic normativity, we must affirm that there are some mind-independent facts about reality; i.e., we must posit a form of objectivity. Further, if we are concerned with truth at all, it seems that we ought to be concerned with following these objective, epistemic norms.

    Thus, if you want to believe that you ought to believe it true that there are no moral norms, that you have reasons to believe there are no moral norms, you've subscribed to a form of epistemic objectivity grounded in an assumed mind-independent reality.

    Of course, you could always deny that you either ought to or ought not to believe anything, but then you've landed in silence.

    Just food for thought.

    Edit: it's late. Goodnight gentlemen.

  10. #50
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Nope, just a fault in perception.
    Your perception is just that though, your perception. We can compare the measured results of perceptions (our descriptions). We can't however truly share perceptions "as they are".

Similar Threads

  1. The Nature of Ne -- a metaphorical visual
    By spirilis in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 01:55 AM
  2. The Nature of Values
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 06-22-2008, 02:42 PM
  3. The Nature of Fi -- a metaphorical visual
    By arcticangel02 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 07:12 PM
  4. The nature of certainty...
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 08:58 PM
  5. The Nature of Generosity
    By Mycroft in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 05:53 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