User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 198

  1. #141
    Chumped. Obsidius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iNtrovert View Post
    The existence of the universe or multiple universes is not a synthetic necessity. “Gods” that are not omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent cannot exist out of synthetic necessity, but the existence of an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God can. Anything that falls short of being omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent would create an infinite regress of events .The universe is finite, cannot exist out of synthetic necessity and would create an infinite regress. Thus, the universe begs the question of what caused it whereas synthetic necessities do not. So I would say it makes perfect sense to suppose that something more complex than the universe can exist and that it is likely.
    Well, first of all, an infinite regression isn't an issue, because the only reason the Christian God fixes this problem is because they slap the label "eternal" on it, I could do the same for a Universe, and call the problem 'solved'. Also, explain synthetic necessity, because I've never heard of it, even after looking it up, there's nearly nothing about it. Actually, there is nothing about the exact term "synthetic necessity", I'm wondering if you just artificially amalgamated epistemological necessity and semantical synthetics... Also, you have not proven that it's "likely" even if your argument is true, just that it avoids infinite regression by defining itself to be free of the problem, which you could do with any other explanation. The thing is, literally any lesser being/event with the capability of creating a Universe is a more likely creator, by virtue of Occam's razor.
    Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion man.

  2. #142
    noʎ ɟo ǝʇnɔ ʍoH Mademoiselle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    -NTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    Not quite yet, as I want to understand where you stand on this, and based off what I have heard you say in the past.

    In the past, I have heard you say you believe your religious beliefs are the one true way, and that everyone should adhere to them since it is the "best" lifestyle to live under.

    Since you are now saying that we should just not try to convince each other and leave each other alone, that says to me that you simply don't want people to talk about any of this in particular, so your views can stay unquestioned and in your eyes "right". The combination of these two speaks of an individual who wants to silence dissent or quiet questioning. The former of you saying "lets not try to question each other" is fine by itself. That's live and let live. However, combined with your stance you have expressed in the past changes that completely.

    There is a difference between live and let live, and live but not want to let live. The latter of which is, in my view and quite a few others, not ok.

    That said, if your view is that you genuinely do not want others of other views to not change what they do, how they live, and what they believe, then I will let this be and stop the discussion. The reason I bring this up is because I very strongly view the concept of religion as something that is purely individual and should not and can not extend beyond the self. To start applying it to others beyond you is profoundly unfair and illogical.
    Dear friend, I said my opinion, I meant what I said, stop generating other meanings as if there's anything I'd hide, I'm straight froward, that's it.
    I think I'm clear enough
    I don't like to repeat my words
    Isn't it annoying?

    Umm I'm sure you'll understand it and have an opinion of your own
    You'd either support the idea or not
    I suggest not getting obsessed with it
    Because as you know the world makes sense, so does whatever the truth is
    So don't worry, all I'm trying to say is that
    It's up to you
    I had said my opinion, I can explain if you want
    Otherwise you're totally free :)
    Imagine this is the best thing you've ever read.

  3. #143
    Senior Member Studmuffin23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9
    Posts
    171

    Default

    This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends........
    Likes Hard, The Wailing Specter, BluRoses liked this post

  4. #144
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Godel's proof is only one form of evidence involving mathematics.

    Hans Kuhn in his biographical "what I believe" discussed how he had found certain proofs more or less believable or valid over time but he'd never doubted the existence of God.

    His mathematical proof was to with infinity and mathematical principles like that, I'm not exactly learned enough to understand it, he had a total of five proofs I think, the one I remember was about the comprehension of beauty, in music or other mediums, its something which would appear to be hard wired into humanity and yet it serves no purpose in terms of survival, adaptation or evolution.

  5. #145
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    The thing is though, I'm not so worried about God non-existence, I think that's impossible but what's much more worrying a prospect is that God exists but has no conception of or relationship to humanity what so ever.

    If God exists and is as far removed from human beings as human beings are from single cell organisms, which in terms of complexity its not illogical to suppose, then perhaps the relationship is the same, I never think of single cell organisms and I cant relate to them in any meaningful way etc.

    Then there is the possible, grimdark I think, possibility, that God was in search of man, that there was a period of serious engagement with mankind which progressed from the particular, one tribe, one people, to the universal, the whole of humankind, but then terminated following one to many confirmations that humankind would never reciprocate the search.

    That this is grim dark for me, and the worst possibility, probably reflects my own religious tradition, as it incorporates hope of the most proactively outreaching version of God, more in earnest than the Jewish or other abrahamic theist creedos in the search for man, didnt just search for man but became man, experienced some of the worst things any man could as a consequence of the divinely ordained cosmic order. How would it be possible for God to have a greater insight into humankind than that?

  6. #146
    Senior Member Forever_Jung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Honestly, God's existence/non-existence is not something I agonize over anymore. I am more interested in finding ways to plug into the world, and feel connected. Whether that feeling IS God, or a cognitive illusion, or just gas, I'm happy to feel and experience unity with all living things.
    Likes Hard, The Wailing Specter, BluRoses liked this post

  7. #147
    Senior Member great_bay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    541
    Posts
    947

    Default

    God isn't real. That doesn't mean people won't stop believe in him.

  8. #148

    Default

    God is real. That doesn't mean people will stop denying it.

  9. #149
    Senior Member Forever_Jung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    People aren't real. That doesn't mean God will stop believing in us.

    Wait, am I doing this right?
    Likes BluRoses liked this post

  10. #150
    Senior Member iNtrovert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    Ni
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/so
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Obsidius View Post
    Well, first of all, an infinite regression isn't an issue, because the only reason the Christian God fixes this problem is because they slap the label "eternal" on it, I could do the same for a Universe, and call the problem 'solved'.
    There’s more to it than that. Aside from the fact that the universe has been proven to have a definite beginning and is expanding leading to a definite end it is material. We know material things have a life cycle. Also the concept of a non-created God was ascribed those qualities long before it became convenient. The fact of the matter is anything that makes a claim to exists prior to the existence of the universe would need these qualities in light of what we know about the nature of the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Obsidius View Post
    Also, explain synthetic necessity, because I've never heard of it, even after looking it up, there's nearly nothing about it. Actually, there is nothing about the exact term "synthetic necessity", I'm wondering if you just artificially amalgamated epistemological necessity and semantical synthetics...
    6 . Synthetic necessity obtains where a statement of the form “Necessarily p” (or “It cannot be that so-and-so”) is true and neither it, nor p, is analytic. For example, “Nothing can be green and red all over” is presumably a case of synthetic necessity if the concept of being not red is not contained in the concept of being green. “Necessarily, bachelors are unmarried”, on the other hand, is not a case of synthetic necessity because it is analytic that bachelors are unmarried.7-The Necessity of God’s Existence 1 Daniel von Wachter


    Quote Originally Posted by Obsidius View Post
    Also, you have not proven that it's "likely" even if your argument is true, just that it avoids infinite regression by defining itself to be free of the problem, which you could do with any other explanation.
    Already addressed this

    Quote Originally Posted by Obsidius View Post
    The thing is, literally any lesser being/event with the capability of creating a Universe is a more likely creator, by virtue of Occam's razor.
    Occam's razor the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. I’d like to know what assumptions about the concept of God need to be made that a supposed Universe without God are not. We are not talking about a specific God or doctrine just the concept of a God that is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.
    "Re-examine all that you have been told... dismiss that which insults your soul."_Walt Whitman

Similar Threads

  1. The irrefutable existence of God
    By Zangetshumody in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 07:52 PM
  2. 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
  3. This is the song that never ends,
    By Brendan in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 01:11 PM
  4. Debate on the existence of god
    By nightning in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 12-23-2008, 03:31 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 07:23 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