User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 158

  1. #91
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    Science needs something to observe to serve as proof, philosophy is not so constrained, so you can claim the title of Scientist and miss out on the conclusions a philosopher can extrapolate with ease. The lack of scientific proof is no bar to the search for truth, your thinking that it does is a prejudice, and the sign of someone who does not understand the potency of philosophy; because one does not understand the limits of science or the stupidity of the choice to be similarly limited thinker.
    What you have extrapolated is not easy, even for philosophy, and your conclusion does not amount to an existence as your thread title claims, only the necessity of postulating an existence.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  2. #92
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    Your question is presumptuous and invalid.
    Why?

  3. #93
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mal12345 View Post
    What you have extrapolated is not easy, even for philosophy, and your conclusion does not amount to an existence as your thread title claims, only the necessity of postulating an existence.
    What is the difference? Is that seriously the level your on; pitiful.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  4. #94
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Why?
    If there is a God, one can conclude further things about the nature of existence, through the use of inductive arguments one can conclude a sympathetic creator, that is just one of the answers an affirmative to the question produces.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  5. #95
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    If there is a God, one can conclude further things about the nature of existence, through the use of inductive arguments one can conclude a sympathetic creator, that is just one of the answers an affirmative to the question produces.
    Since you believe to know that there is a god, please go right ahead and show me, by means of inductive reasoning, that he is also a sympathetic creator. That was, more or less, one question.

    Here is the other one: If you really need something supernatural to make sense of the natural, why not invoke, say, a supernatural big bang that caused the natural big bang? Your argument, if it were correct, would give you a supernatural cause x. There is, however, no reason for you to name x 'god' and presume that x has a will, a consciousness, any power over the natural once it has been created or sympathy.

  6. #96
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    If there is a God, one can conclude further things about the nature of existence, through the use of inductive arguments one can conclude a sympathetic creator, that is just one of the answers an affirmative to the question produces.
    Once could also inductively conclude a brutal and capricious creator.

    Science needs something to observe to serve as proof, philosophy is not so constrained, so you can claim the title of Scientist and miss out on the conclusions a philosopher can extrapolate with ease. The lack of scientific proof is no bar to the search for truth, your thinking that it does is a prejudice, and the sign of someone who does not understand the potency of philosophy; because one does not understand the limits of science or the stupidity of the choice to be similarly limited thinker.
    Yet, philosophic conclusions by their very nature only point out further questions that we haven't considered. There is no objective truth to be found in philosophy, as there is none in science. That's only logical, since science is a branch of philosophy. The best philosophy can do is to point out that it could be one way. It cannot definitively conclude any objective truths, as everyone's existence is per se subjective.

    God is not part of reality, or he would need a cause, including him in reality and giving him but one exemption is not an elegant portrait of the scenario.
    Ascribing solely one exemption would in fact paint a highly elegant portrait of the scenario, as it would eliminate any need for further unprovable constructs.

    I don't understand why you think matter would be an adequate first cause, matter isn't supernatural therefore it is not immune to the question, what 'caused the matter'? God is invoked because he is a very special sort of entity, necessarily a being of infinite real qualities that we're able to postulate. I do not accept that God is infinitely complex, I believe he could be quite 'logically simple'... Absolute virtue; love(virtues and the intent to nourish) incarnate. I think you catch the point...
    All these qualities are subjective human values, though, while the existence of matter is something that people necessarily agree upon, given the strong evidence. As far as a first cause goes, we do not, and perhaps cannot, understand the essence of existence; without such an understanding, we cannot effectively postulate on causation or even the temporality of the universe.

  7. #97
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Since you believe to know that there is a god, please go right ahead and show me, by means of inductive reasoning, that he is also a sympathetic creator. That was, more or less, one question.

    Here is the other one: If you really need something supernatural to make sense of the natural, why not invoke, say, a supernatural big bang that caused the natural big bang? Your argument, if it were correct, would give you a supernatural cause x. There is, however, no reason for you to name x 'god' and presume that x has a will, a consciousness, any power over the natural once it has been created or sympathy.
    The universe, from the beginning has had built into it finite specifications, there are at least 40 of these specifications,- forces constants, values of powers for things, all of which make life possible, a finely tuned cosmos and a creator, of course he most likely has no interest in life, that would be to misread the point of creation, totally.

    To your second question, since I've already covered this: http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...=1#post1575759
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  8. #98
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    What is the difference? Is that seriously the level your on; pitiful.
    That was an undiscriminating and trite comment. In fact, I have 25 years experience dealing with philosophical issues. Do you have any real arguments? Any at all?
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  9. #99
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Once could also inductively conclude a brutal and capricious creator.



    Yet, philosophic conclusions by their very nature only point out further questions that we haven't considered. There is no objective truth to be found in philosophy, as there is none in science. That's only logical, since science is a branch of philosophy. The best philosophy can do is to point out that it could be one way. It cannot definitively conclude any objective truths, as everyone's existence is per se subjective.



    Ascribing solely one exemption would in fact paint a highly elegant portrait of the scenario, as it would eliminate any need for further unprovable constructs.



    All these qualities are subjective human values, though, while the existence of matter is something that people necessarily agree upon, given the strong evidence. As far as a first cause goes, we do not, and perhaps cannot, understand the essence of existence; without such an understanding, we cannot effectively postulate on causation or even the temporality of the universe.
    A rule with an exemption is not a very good rule, and it would be a poor distinction to draw where the exemption could be manifest as a deeper structural distinction that brings to light greater ramifications that you have skillfully truncated with that quote of me.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  10. #100
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mal12345 View Post
    That was an undiscriminating and trite comment. In fact, I have 25 years experience dealing with philosophical issues. Do you have any real arguments? Any at all?
    yes, I don't discriminate between things that are the same, that's something that didn't take me years to learn.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

Similar Threads

  1. Arguing the Existence or Non-existence of God--the thread that never ends
    By The Wailing Specter in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 197
    Last Post: 04-07-2015, 07:37 AM
  2. The Different Names of "God"
    By Thalassa in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-16-2013, 02:34 AM
  3. The central question of religion is not the existence of God?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2012, 04:16 PM
  4. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 08:05 PM
  5. Debate on the existence of god
    By nightning in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 12-23-2008, 03:31 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