User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 95

Thread: What is Wisdom?

  1. #41
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    [...] all the good arguments are in favor of a God.
    Could you name two besides the first-cause one that you thought was irrefutable?

  2. #42
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Could you name two besides the first-cause one that you thought was irrefutable?
    Stating you are not convinced that the laws of reason and logic are applicable to reality in order to obviate the conclusion that God exists is not a serious refutation Nico. So I will count the cosmological argument, then there's the fine-tuning argument (or the teleological argument).
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    Stating you are not convinced that the laws of reason and logic are applicable to reality in order to obviate the conclusion that God exists is not a serious refutation Nico.
    There were many arguments against yours. The one you could not counter was this: Supposing there was a supernatural cause, why must it be a god and cannot be something else? You said anything but god would itself require a cause, even a supernatural big bang. But that does not make sense, because if a supernatural big bang requires a cause, then so does a god. You initially brought in the supernatural in order to escape the cause-and-effect problem. So if it makes sense for a god, it makes sense for anything supernatural.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    So I will count the cosmological argument, then there's the fine-tuning argument (or the teleological argument).
    That is not a good argument because we can explain its premises without invoking a god. There is no necessity to the conclusion.

  4. #44
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Wisdom is understanding something from all relevant perspectives in order to deal with the thing that you understand
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  5. #45
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    I despise these sorts of questions because they are always meant to be "open-ended"(which is another word for 'meaningless'), and I find that dishonest to the whole notion of seeking the truth, which is the origin of asking questions. The reality of the situation is that it's not a 'real' question. It's a "suggestion" to redirect thinking, a needless one since wisdom is far from undefined.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    There were many arguments against yours. The one you could not counter was this: Supposing there was a supernatural cause, why must it be a god and cannot be something else? You said anything but god would itself require a cause, even a supernatural big bang. But that does not make sense, because if a supernatural big bang requires a cause, then so does a god. You initially brought in the supernatural in order to escape the cause-and-effect problem. So if it makes sense for a god, it makes sense for anything supernatural.


    That is not a good argument because we can explain its premises without invoking a god. There is no necessity to the conclusion.
    A supernatural big bang isn't really supernatural, because it isn't itself a cause, its simply a product (that is why I identify it as an effect); invoking a supernatural big bang simply amounts to table thumping that the universe just inexplicably popped into existence, it doesn't stand as an independent entity capable of being labeled supernatural. Invoking a God as the supernatural entity makes much more sense, as it can exist independently of this universe, and it can account for the creation of this universe, it is actually supernatural (independent of time and space as well as the other limitations of this universe). And so its much neater to call God supernatural, as its identifying the supernatural force of creation; whereas a supernatural big bang is simply table thumping with no explanation from where a force is being emitting.

    The teleological argument is not a deductive argument, and so it only indicates what is most probable, and that it does.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    A supernatural big bang isn't really supernatural, because it isn't itself a cause, its simply a product (that is why I identify it as an effect); invoking a supernatural big bang simply amounts to table thumping that the universe just inexplicably popped into existence, it doesn't stand as an independent entity capable of being labeled supernatural. Invoking a God as the supernatural entity makes much more sense, as it can exist independently of this universe, and it can account for the creation of this universe, it is actually supernatural (independent of time and space as well as the other limitations of this universe). And so its much neater to call God supernatural, as its identifying the supernatural force of creation; whereas a supernatural big bang is simply table thumping with no explanation from where a force is being emitting.
    It is not table thumping at all. The supernatural big bang is defined as existing independent of time and space as well as the other limitations of this universe without having been caused - because that is all your cosmological argument calls for. If you dislike the word, we could call it a supernatural snowflake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    The teleological argument is not a deductive argument, and so it only indicates what is most probable, and that it does.
    It does for you. If it were a good argument, it should be harder to explain it away.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    It is not table thumping at all. The supernatural big bang is defined as existing independent of time and space as well as the other limitations of this universe without having been caused - because that is all your cosmological argument calls for. If you dislike the word, we could call it a supernatural snowflake.


    It does for you. If it were a good argument, it should be harder to explain it away.
    The big-bang is the starting point in the process of creation, so obviously this is not something that can exist outside of the dimensions of time and space; then you say I can call it a snowflake,- if I do this I'm just unsure what it is you are describing by that name, is it the same entity? An entity that by its nature does not make sense outside the confines of a distinct delimited universe that begs the question of how it came it be, rather that simply being inexplicable... God gives the system a grounding, your supernatural assertion is empty of thought and so can't even be called capricious, it just really is inexplicable.

    You didn't explain away the teleological argument, you fail to understand its form, which makes your assessment of it void.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Spurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    xNxx
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Wow. this is getting good.

    Props to both Nicodemus and Zang for their admirable skill in argumentation, though I would definitely have to side with Zang on this particular topic.

    Keep it going....


  10. #50
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    The big-bang is the starting point in the process of creation, so obviously this is not something that can exist outside of the dimensions of time and space; then you say I can call it a snowflake,- if I do this I'm just unsure what it is you are describing by that name, is it the same entity? An entity that by its nature does not make sense outside the confines of a distinct delimited universe that begs the question of how it came it be, rather that simply being inexplicable... God gives the system a grounding, your supernatural assertion is empty of thought and so can't even be called capricious, it just really is inexplicable.
    It makes no difference whether it is a supernatural big bang, snowflake, car or canary bird: they all satisfy the conditions that you claimed call for a god. So, in that sense, the term is empty; it is empty because the conditions do not require any specification as to what kind of being the first cause is; therefore it could be a snowflake just as well as a god. Your argument does not permit you to choose one over the other.

    However, if you want to call it god, god must be defined as 'existing independent of time and space as well as the other limitations of this universe without having been caused' and nothing more: no will, no consciousness, no watching, loving, hating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    You didn't explain away the teleological argument, you fail to understand its form, which makes your assessment of it void.
    Yes, I did not explain it away, because I know that you would simply discard the explanation as too secularistic. I do understand its form, though.

Similar Threads

  1. What is truth (split from post poll)
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-27-2013, 09:47 AM
  2. What is Philosophy?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 09:10 PM
  3. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  4. What is the point of the MBTI?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:37 AM
  5. Just what is on your desk?
    By disregard in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-25-2007, 08:19 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