User Tag List

First 6789 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 88

  1. #71
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    Raised strict Roman Catholic. As a kid I was a believer in the teachings, but have never been a creationist, even when I was very small and surrounded by them. Just evolution with some divine guidance, since creationism has absolutely no basis in science whatsoever. Even then I realized the evolution "with help" thing was still just a theory.

    Nowadays, I'm pretty much a spiritual agnostic, not by my own choosing, it just happened by accident, when I was about 18, and thought about "the meaning of the world" for about six months which was depressing and got me no where except that "Religion is a safety guard from the truth, whatever that is." I have trouble believing in things that I can't see, and I certainly can't sit in a homily and believe an interpretation of those things that I can't see but have only heard. Though I do have great respect for most Catholic priests and find many of them to be very intelligent, and in fact less judging and strict than many of their parishioners. They are a little more outside of the box. So I'm therefore still very interested in what they have to say. I have respect for most religious leaders in general,whatever religion they may be.

    Some things that have happened in my life keep me believing in something, though I'm not sure what that something is yet, and I doubt I'll ever know, unless I can break out of the box that I'm thinking in somehow. I can't help but feeling that a search for truth is always something done in vain, though I know the human brain can't help it. Most truth searching in my mind simply results in more possible outcomes and I don't believe the human brain will ever be able to fathom the truth in my lifetime.
    The RC church isnt creationist though, creationism is only important to biblical literalists and believers in scripture alone tenets of belief, which is central to protestant Christianity not RC Christianity.

  2. #72
    Senior Member Feops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INTx
    Posts
    829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antimony View Post
    Alright, I see what you mean. I will tell you when I understand the universe
    Welllll.. I didn't mean to imply anything as vague and grand as somehow spontanously understanding the entire universe.

    I meant that the universe as we see and experience it is quite sufficient to feel a kinship with one's surroundings. There is meaningful interaction with the real and tangible. If anything, I see association with what is claimed to be 'supernatural' to be a step away from this kinship rather than a step towards understanding a sort of higher power.

  3. #73
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    I'm in a transition period in my life where I don't know what I believe.

    My whole life until now, I've kind of believed everything that I've been told and seen in church. I've been going to church almost my entire life. But lately, I've been questioning everything that I've been told.

    I learn through personal experience and self development (dom. Ne/inf. Fi) and can then define my values and beliefs.

    As of now, I'm in the grey shaded area right after childhood and just before adulthood.

    So I don't really know, because my real life experiences have just began to unfold...and as they do, I'm sad to say I begin to question the things I thought I believed in.
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  4. #74
    You're fired. Lol. Antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ????
    Posts
    3,437

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feops View Post
    Welllll.. I didn't mean to imply anything as vague and grand as somehow spontanously understanding the entire universe.

    I meant that the universe as we see and experience it is quite sufficient to feel a kinship with one's surroundings. There is meaningful interaction with the real and tangible. If anything, I see association with what is claimed to be 'supernatural' to be a step away from this kinship rather than a step towards understanding a sort of higher power.
    I know, but I thought I would tell you when I understood everything

    I understand what you mean, though. I like the feeling of what is around me (that is, when I actually pay attention to my surroundings and all that is around me).

    And do you feel like it is a step away because you can't really feel it directly, as something more than an idea?



    Quote Originally Posted by OneWithSoul View Post
    I'm in a transition period in my life where I don't know what I believe.

    My whole life until now, I've kind of believed everything that I've been told and seen in church. I've been going to church almost my entire life. But lately, I've been questioning everything that I've been told.

    I learn through personal experience and self development (dom. Ne/inf. Fi) and can then define my values and beliefs.

    As of now, I'm in the grey shaded area right after childhood and just before adulthood.

    So I don't really know, because my real life experiences have just began to unfold...and as they do, I'm sad to say I begin to question the things I thought I believed in.
    I know exactly what you mean, my friend. Hence this thread
    I haven't really disowned anything, rather I am trying to question it all, develop my own belief system. I think a faith is kind of hard for me. I sort of think there is a God, and then I don't. I know I certainly do not agree with many ideas presented to me in church settings, but then there are ideas I do agree with.

    In any event, I hope you figure out through your own experiences and ponderings what you really do believe in. I think it is great to question, even if in the end you believe the same, or similar. It is better than following blindly.

    But why does it make you sad to question?
    Excuse me, but does this smell like chloroform to you?

    Always reserve the right to become smarter at a future point in time, for only a fool limits themselves to all they knew in the past. -Alex

  5. #75
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerbah View Post
    You can only trust what is real.
    Indeed, when it comes to trust what is real is to be preferred to what is not real, imaginary, or merely apparant. However, there is disagreement about what is real and how knowledge of reality is to be obtained. For John Locke, all knowledge comes from experience. Yet three problems are readily apparant: (1) The senses are known for deceiving and are thus not an absolute source of knowledge. Instead, experience as a source of knowledge is only more or less reliable, probable, but not absolute the way a priori truths are. (2) Consciousness is a source of knowledge, and is not conveyed through any sensory organ. One can, for instance, lose one's sense of sight and still be conscious. (3) Locke is assuming that all knowledge comes from experience; however Kant has demonstrated that certain things can be known priori to experience--namely, a priori truths. For example, a person need not know that if one looks through a rose-colored lens the world will appear rosy. This can be ascertained a priori.

    In spite of these shortcomings, or perhaps because of them, rationalists posit that empirical knowledge is next to worthless. Rationalism is a much more reliable epistemological system. It admits no fallacies so to speak, whereas empiricists commit informal fallacies all the time as they make observations and from these induce generalized truths. For rationalists the preference is for deduction. Deductive knowledge is often constructed in the following way. Concise definitions are established that specify a range of phenomena, but only that which is essential. Out of these definitions, axioms are formed, which are self-evident truths that are universally agreeable. From these definitions and axioms propositions are formed, traced to their definitional and axiomatic sources. Propositions are then demonstrated, in some cases by illustrating that the antithesis of the proposition leads to an absurdity and thus the proposition is necessarily true. In total, with definitions, axioms, and propositions, scholars are able to deduce theorems. These theorems will have the advantage of being replicable. In other words, one should be able to follow the reasoning, which is deliberately made transparent, to arrive at the same conclusion now and forever.

    Now, when the senses and reason supply you with different and conflicting pieces of knowledge, which do you rely on? Which do you trust?

    You might say quite sensibly that you rely on a combination. Certainly this is similar to the idea Kant had in mind when he claimed that the senses cannot think, and the understanding does not see, and what was needed, therefore, was a synthesis of empricism and rationalism. Accordingly, one's best bet is in transcendental logic, where the sensibility is used as content for synthetic judgments a priori.

    In short, what is really at stake here is the epistemological system one is using. Mysticism is not to be mistaken for an epistemological system anymore than the tooth ferry is to be taken for something that exists. The reasoning is as follows. All things in the animate and inanimate world take place according to rules. Nowhere is there to be found any irregularity. True, at certain times these rules are not known. The child, for instance, may speak in grammatically correct sentences without knowing the rules of grammar. The nonmathematically inclined person may not see a pattern when given a Fibinacci sequence, but there are rules in each. Both follow algorithms. If all things follow rules, then humans too would have to follow rules. Thought, which follows rules, is in essentials the same everywhere. It is not rue that there are different kinds of laws of thought to suit the different kinds of objects thought about. Even William James Sidis, with his alleged IQ of 300, could not think eleven-dimensionally. Sidis too was bounded by laws. Now, proper thinking is by definition logically valid thinking. If it is not logically valid, it cannot be called proper. For the linguist, the basic laws of logic are necessary for a basic level of communication to take place. For the logician, a basic condition of knowledge is truth and the criteria of truth is fourfold: (1) The principle of non-contradiction (i.e. X cannot be both X and not X). (2) The principle of identity (i.e. X=X and not Y). (3) The principle of excluded middle (i.e. X either is or is not, there is no other option). (4) Principle of sufficient reason. Given this criterion of truth, which as mentioned is a condition of knowledge, it is clear that mysticism cannot meet any such standard. Myticism is the belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience. Such a definition is dubious and cannot even meet the criterion of non-contradiction. If something is beyond perceptional and intellectual apprehension then this precludes the possibility of it being accessible to experience. In order to experience, one must perceive. We don't talk about what we did while we slept for six hours because there was nothing perceived therefore nothing interesting experienced. If, on the other hand, one dreamt then one might have something to talk about. If one slept well or bad, one might also have something to talk about, but only inasfar as the sleep informs the experience when awake because to propound an experience is to perceive and/or discuss it on an intellectual level. Mystics claim to not be binded by the rules of perception and intellectualization. It is my duty, therefore, to tell the mystic that he knows nothing for only in perception and thinking can knowledge be produced. By modus tollens if there is not perception and/or thinking, then knowledge cannot be produced. If knowledge cannot be produced, then this cannot be called an epistemic system. It follows that mysticism cannot be called an epistemic system. Thus, from the point of view of an epistemology textbook, mysticism is intellectually worthless. Therefore, in going back to the original claim,

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerbah View Post
    You can only trust what is real.
    I shall agree and go on to note that mysticism is not real; therefore mysticism cannot be trusted.

  6. #76
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Thumbs down The Dance of Mathematics

    Quote Originally Posted by Antimony View Post
    And how may we look through God's eyes, assuming there is such a thing?
    We can look through God's eyes by becoming numerate.

    Just as we can look through the eyes of authors by becoming literate.

    Just as we can look through the eyes of the West by learning Ancient Greek.

    And when you can read and write mathematics as fluently as you read and write English or Ancient Greek, you will be able to look through God's eyes.

    There are many paths into mathematically numeracy. The path I followed was through the philosophy of mathematics. And the more I read, the more vistas opened up and the more curious I became. Until I became at home in a mathematical library called Hancock library. And when I visit I always check the mathematical magazines so I can read the latest news in the mathematical world.

    You are literate so you can read the daily newspaper, why not become numerate so you can read the latest news in mathematics.

    Mathematics makes the world go round. Mathematics is the dance of God.

    Why not accept the invitation to the dance?

  7. #77
    Junior Member Contemptus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INtJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    22

    Default

    my advice: don't consult a forum, if you are interested in contemplating these things... SEARCH... And continue to search
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  8. #78
    You're fired. Lol. Antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ????
    Posts
    3,437

    Default

    Victor: okay, I will go ahead and learn the language of God, again assuming it exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Contemptus View Post
    my advice: don't consult a forum, if you are interested in contemplating these things... SEARCH... And continue to search
    Oh, I was more interested in other people's ideas. Sure, they give me ideas of my own...sort of, but I am not exactly following what they say just because they say it.
    Excuse me, but does this smell like chloroform to you?

    Always reserve the right to become smarter at a future point in time, for only a fool limits themselves to all they knew in the past. -Alex

  9. #79
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antimony View Post
    Victor: okay, I will go ahead and learn the language of God, again assuming it exists.
    The 'language of God' is a metaphor. And metaphors don't exist.

    Rather a metaphor is a comparison of relationships. So a metaphor can no more exist than a comparison.

    But most of language and mathematics consists of metaphor. So metaphor is the way we see.

    A metaphor takes the structure -

    As A is to B, so C is to D.

    So we are comparing the relationship between A and B, to the relationship between C and D.

    God said, "Let there be light", and the metaphor was born. And so were we, for so far, no computer can make a metaphor, only we can make metaphors.

  10. #80
    You're fired. Lol. Antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ????
    Posts
    3,437

    Default

    So, how do you know such a God exists?
    Excuse me, but does this smell like chloroform to you?

    Always reserve the right to become smarter at a future point in time, for only a fool limits themselves to all they knew in the past. -Alex

Similar Threads

  1. I'm a CEO Now - And I Still Need Advice
    By Antimony in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-29-2013, 10:11 AM
  2. [ENFJ] ENFJ's and emotional needs?
    By Neutralpov in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 02-25-2013, 11:12 AM
  3. [Other] Need N's and SJ's insight and help!
    By Not2bforgot10 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-17-2009, 12:55 PM
  4. [ENTJ] Creative ideas and the need to control
    By INTPness in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 08:29 AM
  5. Can you be nice and still get things done?
    By wolfy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 04-03-2009, 01:20 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