User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 158

  1. #81
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    Not one person has quoted my rebuttal post, which is interesting as its on the first page and rebuts the first cause needs a cause etc. Nicodemus its wonderful how you manage to vomit your 5 proclivities without combating any of my substance, your prejudice does not make you above an argument that you have proven on vent you have no ability to refute. Your condescending posits are presumptuous, it is interesting all of my detractors have not entered the arena, it is easy to comment rather than refute.
    Sorry we're boring you by not addressing your OP, Zang, but there are so many assumptions in your OP. I'd point them out, but others have indicated them already and it's obvious you're not receptive to the criticisms.

  2. #82
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlippoth View Post
    Sorry we're boring you by not addressing your OP, Zang, but there are so many assumptions in your OP. I'd point them out, but others have indicated them already and it's obvious you're not receptive to the criticisms.
    My rebuttal post is not my OP, such simple things escape you? The people that bitch about assumptions cant follow the flow of a solitary thread of reason, that is not hard to pick out; as I said, I'm not going to reformulate my words for those too stupid to see an argument, as those are definitely not the people who have the ability to contribute in any case.

    But please, tell me of my assumptions, which premise is doubtful to you? Don't just blather words that have no meaning...
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  3. #83
    Writing... Tamske's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,764

    Default

    You want me to quote your rebuttal?
    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    The difference between objects in this universe and things outside, we know we are all contingent on a prior state of affair occurring and producing us, the only answer to this chain of contingency is to invoke a necessary being. I don't believe its true that God breaks the causation principle, the only reasonable answer to the predicament one finds oneself (the one above) is to implore an eternal and infinite being. God is the answer to lack caused through the contingency issue, if you reduce the same argument to him is forgetting why you invoked him in the first place... lets not forget what consistency truly means...
    Okay. What's the definition of "universe"? I thought that meant "every existing thing"... From your post, I understand you don't mean that with "universe". So let's define "reality" as the set of ALL existing things. So if God exists, it must be inside Reality, okay?
    Now Reality consists - let's take your theistic view - out of Universe and God.
    Almost all things in Reality have got a cause. There is only one exception - God.
    Almost all things in Reality go from simple to complex. Matter started as loose particles, cluttered together to form hydrogen, cluttered together to stars, and inside the stars all other elements formed. Life started as chunks of matter able to copy themselves, probably haphazardly with the elements around them, and the most able to copy themselves found themselves copied many times... at the expense of the simpler ones... until you've got copy-matter as complex as a human being. Again, only one exception - God is infinitely complex and came at the very beginning.
    Almost all things in Reality are observable, whether directly or indirectly. Again one exception.

    I assume one thing about Reality. It's simple. It follows straightforward rules. Not whimsical ones. Following that assumption, I'll discard that one thing upsetting the whole straightforward build of Reality. To me, Reality is equal to the Universe.

    If you are allowed to assume there exists a complex being without a cause, I'm allowed to assume there exists simple matter without a cause.
    I don't understand how a universe can exist without a cause. Really, I don't. But a universe without a cause is less problematic than a wilful, powerful god without a cause. "Outside the universe, so doesn't follow the rules" is not an argument. You expect from me that I should seek for a cause for the star's motion (and you're not happy with conservation of angular momentum, either), and yet you claim God ("first cause") is immune for the same question?
    Why wouldn't matter be the first cause, rather than God?
    Got questions? Ask an ENTP!
    I'm female. I just can't draw women

  4. #84
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    Nicodemus its wonderful how you manage to vomit your 5 proclivities without combating any of my substance
    I did that on Vent ad nauseam. It seems the fact that you will not allow 'I have no answer' as an answer leads, no, forces you to invoke a god, apparently the only eternal thing you can come up with. 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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    your prejudice does not make you above an argument that you have proven on vent you have no ability to refute.
    It is not my prejudice, it is my scepticism which makes me above your argument. It is true: I will not allow a supernatural cause as an answer, but only for the simple reason that it can never be proven and, even if it were made plausible, would have no meaning at all. Does it not bother you that the answer to the biggest question ever has absolutely no ramifications?

  5. #85
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwn86 View Post
    My friends, did not Jesus Christ live and die on the cross? We have historical evidence of this (the Romans were excellent record-keepers).
    "This is one of the problems with the story. We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death. There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished. Even though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all the Gospels come from later times. Discerning which material is early and which is late becomes an important task. In fact, the earliest writings that survive are the genuine letters of Paul. They were written some twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Yet Paul was not a follower of Jesus during his lifetime; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus during his ministry."

    White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3–4

    Apparently the records were lost. Or did you happen to find them?
    "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.”

  6. #86
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    I did that on Vent ad nauseam. It seems the fact that you will not allow 'I have no answer' as an answer leads, no, forces you to invoke a god, apparently the only eternal thing you can come up with. 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?


    It is not my prejudice, it is my scepticism which makes me above your argument. It is true: I will not allow a supernatural cause as an answer, but only for the simple reason that it can never be proven and, even if it were made plausible, would have no meaning at all. Does it not bother you that the answer to the biggest question ever has absolutely no ramifications?
    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.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  7. #87
    Senior Member Santosha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    MBTI
    HUMR
    Enneagram
    6 sx
    Socionics
    iNfp Ni
    Posts
    1,521

    Default

    Can god exist outside of logic?

    "You seem to be talking about a State of Being, which is beyond a our mere State of Knowledge.
    A State of Knowledge is the usual object-subject separation; the separation of the Knower from the Known.
    A State of Being, on the other hand, reflects the Taoist wisdom that 'only those who don't know truely know'.
    In other words, you must be the wind to know the wind.
    Knowledge in itself is just a secondary by-product of one's State of Being.
    A State of Being is often refered to as a State of Nature where one is alive like a child in the Natural Spontaneous Perfection of the Moment.
    This is a Wholistic State of Enlightenment where one does not separate, individuate, nor alienate one's self from Nature.
    Alienation, however, is the one word most often used to describe the condition of Civilized Man.
    This arises from Civilized Man's fear-driven fight-or-flight dualistic interpretation of Causal Relations.
    You and I are trapped in this dualistic mental mode in which we simplistically objectify and individuate every experience and relationship we will ever have in life.
    You and I, because we have already been Civilized, will never be able to experience this GOD-thing you mention that's beyond mere definition or logic.
    You and I will never be alive to that spirit.
    All we can do is speculate in futility.
    Every idea we conceive is already contaminated with the alienated flesh of our ubiquitous death-drive.
    So why bother, unless we enjoy holding our nose."

    Zang, I don't know why you bother arguing it. Your ideas would be better discussed on a different forum. And I think thats pretty sad. =(
    Man suffers only because he takes seriously what the gods made for fun - Watts

  8. #88
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tamske View Post
    You want me to quote your rebuttal?

    Okay. What's the definition of "universe"? I thought that meant "every existing thing"... From your post, I understand you don't mean that with "universe". So let's define "reality" as the set of ALL existing things. So if God exists, it must be inside Reality, okay?
    Now Reality consists - let's take your theistic view - out of Universe and God.
    Almost all things in Reality have got a cause. There is only one exception - God.
    Almost all things in Reality go from simple to complex. Matter started as loose particles, cluttered together to form hydrogen, cluttered together to stars, and inside the stars all other elements formed. Life started as chunks of matter able to copy themselves, probably haphazardly with the elements around them, and the most able to copy themselves found themselves copied many times... at the expense of the simpler ones... until you've got copy-matter as complex as a human being. Again, only one exception - God is infinitely complex and came at the very beginning.
    Almost all things in Reality are observable, whether directly or indirectly. Again one exception.

    I assume one thing about Reality. It's simple. It follows straightforward rules. Not whimsical ones. Following that assumption, I'll discard that one thing upsetting the whole straightforward build of Reality. To me, Reality is equal to the Universe.

    If you are allowed to assume there exists a complex being without a cause, I'm allowed to assume there exists simple matter without a cause.
    I don't understand how a universe can exist without a cause. Really, I don't. But a universe without a cause is less problematic than a wilful, powerful god without a cause. "Outside the universe, so doesn't follow the rules" is not an argument. You expect from me that I should seek for a cause for the star's motion (and you're not happy with conservation of angular momentum, either), and yet you claim God ("first cause") is immune for the same question?
    Why wouldn't matter be the first cause, rather than God?
    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. 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...
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  9. #89
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    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.
    Answer the questions, please.

  10. #90
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Answer the questions, please.
    Your question is presumptuous and invalid.
    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