User Tag List

First 35434445464755 Last

Results 441 to 450 of 743

  1. #441
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx
    Posts
    39

    Default

    God might not exist for you, but he exists for me.

  2. #442
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Blahblahblah.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  3. #443
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Schopenhauer wouldnt have commented it any better
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  4. #444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    A good post.
    Can you discuss Islam fundamentalism with Islam fundamentalists?
    No.
    You cannot discuss religion with religious people.
    The first principle of logic.
    Well does that mean that you cant discuss religion with athiests?

    If its resolution you're talking about then they can be just as resolute as each other. A lot of the time I think people are working out their own personal issues and often there's a lot of social psychology and dynamics at work when they reach their conclusions.

  5. #445
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tamske View Post
    That's quite a good point, but I don't see an argument in favour of the existence of a god in it. You can use it even as an argument for the non-existence of a god. Humans made holy texts where they wrote down their beliefs, their sense of awe, their moral rules,...

    What I meant is this. Most religions say (next to a "love your neighbour" idea) that their god is the only one to worship and to believe in. Just look at the first laws of Moses: the first says "love god above all", the second "don't use his name in vain", the third "you should devote one day a week to god". Only from nr. 4 on it's about humans and morality. The same you can see in Christianity and in the Islam.
    So god wants us to believe in him at least as much as he wants us to be good to each other. Still he doesn't send a clear proof of his existence! The sort of proof that can't be mistaken for an indifferent nature made by chance and selection.
    This is a fair point, and the best answer I can give to this is the following metaphor.

    If I could talk to fish I don't think I could convince one that the ocean exists. After all what evidence would I give? It would take me a while to make the fish realize that he is swimming in water, but that is not convincing evidence of an ocean. Or I could point to all the vast and diverse life living in the water, but the fish would just tell me that all of that alleged evidence is simply, "the way things are". I could try to show the fish the boundaries of the ocean, but the ocean is vast and where the oceans meet it's hard to tell where one ocean begins and another ends. From the fish's perspective the ocean is immeasurable. So I don't think I could ever convince the fish using evidence. I mean there is plenty of evidence, but there is so much that it's hard to see it, because the evidence simply looks like everything that exists.

    Instead if I really wanted to convice the fish I would use a different approach by trying to win his trust. Then he might simply take my word for it instead. I would do this because it is easier to convince the fish this way then by trying to convince him that the evidence really was evidence.

    And this is the approach that I think God has taken. He has sent trustworthy people like Jesus or Mohammad or Siddhartha to guide the rest of us. The decline in modern religion, I believe, has nothing to do with science. Rather it has to do with a lack of trustworthy religious leaders. Rising from the dead was just as irrational 2000 years ago as it is today. But people believe these things in spite of them being irrational because they trust the people giving the message. I became a Christian because I trust the authors of the New Testament. I also trusted the pastor of the church I've been attending the past several years. However I don't particularly trust either the Pope or Rick Warren or any other major religious figure I see on TV. The public figures give religion a bad name and I think that affects a person's view of religion more than any scientific evidence (or lack thereof).

    So even though I believe in God I don't think science will find any "evidence" of God's existence. Not unless they find a way to measure the immeasurable. However I think anyone with doubts or skepticism could be made to change their mind if they found a believer they could really trust. Talk of evidence is misleading because no one has been convinced by evidence even though many of the greatest minds in history have believed in some sort of God or transcendent entity. Were Isaac Newton or Socrates really ignorant and irrational people?
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  6. #446
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    This is a fair point, and the best answer I can give to this is the following metaphor.

    If I could talk to fish I don't think I could convince one that the ocean exists. After all what evidence would I give? It would take me a while to make the fish realize that he is swimming in water, but that is not convincing evidence of an ocean. Or I could point to all the vast and diverse life living in the water, but the fish would just tell me that all of that alleged evidence is simply, "the way things are". I could try to show the fish the boundaries of the ocean, but the ocean is vast and where the oceans meet it's hard to tell where one ocean begins and another ends. From the fish's perspective the ocean is immeasurable. So I don't think I could ever convince the fish using evidence. I mean there is plenty of evidence, but there is so much that it's hard to see it, because the evidence simply looks like everything that exists.

    Instead if I really wanted to convice the fish I would use a different approach by trying to win his trust. Then he might simply take my word for it instead. I would do this because it is easier to convince the fish this way then by trying to convince him that the evidence really was evidence.

    And this is the approach that I think God has taken. He has sent trustworthy people like Jesus or Mohammad or Siddhartha to guide the rest of us. The decline in modern religion, I believe, has nothing to do with science. Rather it has to do with a lack of trustworthy religious leaders. Rising from the dead was just as irrational 2000 years ago as it is today. But people believe these things in spite of them being irrational because they trust the people giving the message. I became a Christian because I trust the authors of the New Testament. I also trusted the pastor of the church I've been attending the past several years. However I don't particularly trust either the Pope or Rick Warren or any other major religious figure I see on TV. The public figures give religion a bad name and I think that affects a person's view of religion more than any scientific evidence (or lack thereof).
    Such a wild amount of crude sophistry!

    So even though I believe in God I don't think science will find any "evidence" of God's existence. Not unless they find a way to measure the immeasurable. However I think anyone with doubts or skepticism could be made to change their mind if they found a believer they could really trust. Talk of evidence is misleading because no one has been convinced by evidence even though many of the greatest minds in history have believed in some sort of God or transcendent entity. Were Isaac Newton or Socrates really ignorant and irrational people?
    I do not disbelieve in god based upon this notion that there are no trustworthy believers. I do disbelieve in god, however, because there are no good arguments in his favor - although, being the ignorant fish I am, I can hardly be blamed for this wretched sin.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  7. #447
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Schopenhauer View Post
    Such a wild amount of crude sophistry!
    This from the same man who uttered this profound statement above:
    Blahblahblah.

  8. #448
    Hate
    Guest

    Default

    I did not enter this thread to debate the existence of God, but simply to announce that the prophecy has been fulfilled. The Second Coming of MagnificentMind is upon us.

  9. #449
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Living_Laser
    If I could talk to fish I don't think I could convince one that the ocean exists. After all what evidence would I give? It would take me a while to make the fish realize that he is swimming in water, but that is not convincing evidence of an ocean. Or I could point to all the vast and diverse life living in the water, but the fish would just tell me that all of that alleged evidence is simply, "the way things are". I could try to show the fish the boundaries of the ocean, but the ocean is vast and where the oceans meet it's hard to tell where one ocean begins and another ends. From the fish's perspective the ocean is immeasurable. So I don't think I could ever convince the fish using evidence. I mean there is plenty of evidence, but there is so much that it's hard to see it, because the evidence simply looks like everything that exists.
    The issue there to me is that you have no guarantee that the two situations you are equating in your inductive reasoning are alike whatsoever.

    You happen to know that the sea is only part of existence, and that sky and land exists. So you are free to state all the things you have stated about the sea. But you have no real way to determine if this world -- the land and sea and sky and everything you can potentially experience along with other human beings -- is all there is or not. There is no inherent connection. Just because the sea is not the total essence of reality doesn't mean that there is something outside of our own perceived agreed-upon reality.

    So you are literally flinging yourself into a void where only faith can carry you aloft. Your inductive reasoning only suggests the possibility that something might exist outside of this experience; rationality only comes into play when we discuss whether such a possibility is plausible or implausible, and faith still makes up the vast difference between the two.

    Even who we determine is trustworthy or not is based on our own personal values and standards and isn't necessarily derived from some inherent truth. So claiming that certain authorities are indeed authorities seems to be yet another self-spawned choice of one's own reality, rather than inherent and thus a reality that can be derived by anyone who cares to examine it.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #450
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    This from the same man who uttered this profound statement above:
    How depressing it is to realize, that neither of us is drunk off our rockers. It's a shame really.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



Similar Threads

  1. Let's see how good you guys are
    By Anamalech in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 12:50 AM
  2. I don't know how much more I can take.
    By Haphazard in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 11:15 PM
  3. I really don't know how I feel about this...
    By Wade Wilson in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 07:21 PM
  4. Let's see how this goes...
    By whiteraven in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-15-2007, 08:05 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