User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 87

  1. #51
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Logic doesn't do starting points. Logic works from starting points. N has to come up with those starting points. I know BW agrees with this.

    But if logic deems a starting point inconsistent, it should be thrown away. That was essentially BW's point. If there is no logical explanation (as in, the starting point is inconsistent with itself), then the idea is nonsense.

  2. #52
    Member sleepless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Whatever, maybe "starting point" isn't the word I should use, I don't know, but I think you see what I mean. He thinks that everything in world should be approached through logic/reasoning/thinking (I'm not using any strict definitions here).

    Now I will be so insolent as to quote a spiritual text written by a pure INFJ, impossible to grasp through Ti.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jiddu Krishnamurti
    Knowledge Is Not Wisdom

    In our search for knowledge, in our acquisitive desires, we are losing love, we are blunting the feeling for beauty, the sensitivity to cruelty; we are becoming more and more specialized and less and less integrated. Wisdom cannot be replaced by knowledge, and no amount of explanation, no accumulation of facts, will free man from suffering. Knowledge is necessary, science has its place; but if the mind and heart are suffocated by knowledge, and if the cause of suffering is explained away, life becomes vain and meaningless.

    Information, the knowledge of facts, though ever increasing, is by its very nature limited. Wisdom is infinite, it includes knowledge and the way of action; but we take hold of a branch and think it is the whole tree. Through the knowledge of the part, we can never realize the joy of the whole. Intellect can never lead to the whole, for it is only a segment, a part.

    We have separated intellect from feeling, and have developed intellect at the expense of feeling. We are like a three-legged object with one leg much longer than the others, and we have no balance. We are trained to be intellectual; our education cultivates the intellect to be sharp, cunning, acquisitive, and so it plays the most important role in our life. Intelligence is much greater than intellect, for it is the integration of reason and love; but there can be intelligence only when there is self-knowledge, the deep understanding of the total process of oneself.
    Good night.

  3. #53
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Blah that sounds like nonsense to me. Analysis can be applied to feeling as well -- I mean, yes, it's pointless to live all of life in the analysis frame (and no one does). But the analysis frame and the common human interaction frame are not in conflict. Spending time in one does not take away from the other. And you can make one overarching frame that can include both.

    We are just people with feelings that have validity. It is up to analysis to decide how much validity they have, and how we should integrate those emotions into our actions.

    (When I say frame, I mean set of assumptions, terms, and relations.)

  4. #54
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    4

    Default To SolitaryWalker

    i appreciate your machiavellian knowledge,
    u are akin to niccollo machiavelli in your reasoning (the prince)..
    as such i really think when people answer you they are actually talking to themselves because of logical facts that they cannot understand inherently.

    I believe we have much to discuss.

    I have overcome the INFJs Divine madness and am developed in ALL areas FULLY.
    What everyone has said in this Topic is inherently dogmatic because of personal experience.

    BUT.. with you Solitary u seem to have absolute control on reality...
    I can share with you GODs thoughts... just ask anything .
    You are right about spirituality and religion but theres one fact i wish to enlighten you about.....


    Jesus WAS the first in the INFJ way to reach god.. Because of this he Died for everyones sins but his own were above all else... (Typological path that only one man can reach himself)(GOD)

    On the otherhand...
    He has freed everyone from the tyranny that lies in man, because of this fact everyone is free from sin permanently..
    Religion is merely Subjective and accounts for personal experiences ONLY in a schematic way that leads others to understand their own follies in order to progress spiritually..

    Whats more is it doesnt jsut stop there..

    Sprituality itself can be broken down fundamentally and pragmatically into a concievable and relative whole.

    <----------- The black hole is the white as such. (Up and Down is the same thing but a parrallel inversion of itself)


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Intelligence is much greater than intellect, for it is the integration of reason and love; but there can be intelligence only when there is self-knowledge, the deep understanding of the total process of oneself."

    and so, nothing is EVER invein, because GOD is invein

    and thus everyone is infinitely free to think whatever they want

    thats merely a fundamental dogma tho

    as such

    perfection is attainable

    that very thought is what makes us human

    without it we are invein

    without it we are god
    Last edited by DLGenesis; 01-09-2009 at 09:40 PM. Reason: Never completed.... but it is now ;). i shall explain all..

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DLGenesis View Post
    I can share with you GODs thoughts... just ask anything .
    You are right about spirituality and religion but theres one fact i wish to enlighten you about.....
    Talk about name-dropping. You got that kinda VIP room access?


    Quote Originally Posted by DLGenesis View Post
    Jesus WAS the first in the INFJ way to reach god.. Because of this he Died for everyones sins but his own were above all else...
    I think I get what you're saying, but I could see many disliking this comparison for numerous reasons --myself included.

    Quote Originally Posted by DLGenesis View Post
    (Typological path that only one man can reach himself)(GOD)

    On the otherhand...
    He has freed everyone from the tyranny that lies in man, because of this fact everyone is free from sin permanently..
    Religion is merely Subjective and accounts for personal experiences ONLY in a schematic way that leads others to understand their own follies in order to progress spiritually..
    Tell that to religion and its adherents.

    Quote Originally Posted by DLGenesis View Post
    Whats more is it doesnt jsut stop there..
    OMG! It's Billy Mays!

    Quote Originally Posted by DLGenesis View Post
    and so, nothing is EVER invein, because GOD is invein
    Quote Originally Posted by DLGenesis View Post
    without it we are invein
    Do you mean "in vain"?

    Carry on, sirs and ladies!
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  6. #56
    Senior Member paisley1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Quite the intense thread! Did you guys ever veer off topic, wow! Some flagarent disregards to logic in this thread, that's for sure.

    I agree with the initial argument about an extreme INFJ, doing the things described in the opening theses. With inference to the best explanation, those extreme things would manifest in the 100% I, N, F, and J, more readily. I'm an INFJ ambivert at almost 50% on my I, F, and J, and I'm in agreement about us pushing our Ti button as much as possible, to back up our leaps in logic.

    The only thing I do take issue with throughout this entire thread is this by Solitarywalker:

    "It may benefit you to believe in God, and it may seem rational in this regard. Yet the decision itself to believe in God is irrational as no sound argument has been made in favor of his existence. I submit however, that believing in God in the long run shall do one more harm than good, despite having been beneficial initially. This is because false beliefs about the world tend to generate unrealistic expectations within us, which inevitably lead to disappointments. The most reliable way to attain long-term happiness is by accepting the world for what it is, this way your expectations will match reality more closely and in effect you shall be less likely to incur disappointments."

    So in effect what you're saying is that indifference is truth, as reality is only found in the natural world, and so morality is subjective. The foundation of such a statement is a flagrant error in logic as you are left with self-contradictory answers. You are essentially saying that humanity has a lock on truth, yet we all know that is false, because collectively, we are still riddled with injustice and evil? If we were all truth, we would not have injustice and evil, because we would all be acting in accordance and in harmony with each other, but we're not. The pursuit of absolute truth and absolute authority, comes from realizing the injustices of the world, and the apparent absence of truth, by not accepting the lack thereof. To say even, that logic is truth, is a lie. You can not infer an "ought" from an "is". Take Darwinism's role, the full extent of which has been the basis for purifying the gene pool, in the form of Eugenics. These weren't crazy illogical people, they were killing people they thought were impure and contaminating the gene pool, and doing what they were doing, because they thought they were right. It would be nice to airbrush out the role of such logic, from the evils of the world, but the evidence and proof here is simply a void. Your error in logic jumps from the page.

    The ontological, cosmological, teleological, mathematical fine tuning of the universe, and the moral arguments carry more weight as premises and evidence, than your subjective opinion that belief in God is bad, because it'll make you feel bad, which is funny because that's based on "YOUR" feelings, not logic. In fact, the natural logical answer would be to deduce the arguments suggested, that the inference to the best explanation for why we are here, is in a search for what the uncaused first cause actually is. I submit to you that accepting that the world and universe is all there is, is the illogical and hopeless existential answer, fraught with more disappointment and more unhappiness than believing in a moral code you can't live up to.
    Last edited by paisley1; 01-23-2009 at 12:07 AM.

  7. #57
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    So in effect what you're saying is that indifference is truth, as reality is only found in the natural world, and so morality is subjective..
    No, I did not mention morality. My point was that it is important to know the truth because knowledge of reality can be used to make our lives better.




    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    The foundation of such a statement is a flagrant error in logic as you are left with self-contradictory answers. ..

    I did not make such an argument, but one thing could be said about it, it is an invalid argument.

    Premise 1: X is indifferent to the truth.
    Premise 2: Reality is only objective.

    Conclusion: Therefore morality is subjective.

    Premises have nothing to do with each other, nor does the conclusion have anything to do with the premises. The premises do not entail the conclusion. It is possible for both premises to be true and for the conclusion to be false. So Bob could be indifferent to the truth. Reality could be only objective. Yet, this does not show that morality is subjective.

    You are quite correct, this argument indeed does contain errors in reasoning.


    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    You are essentially saying that humanity has a lock on truth, yet we all know that is false, because collectively, we are still riddled with injustice and evil?..
    No, I did not say that.

    Your argument has the following form.

    Premise 1: It is false that people know the truth.

    Conclusion: Humanity is beset by evil and injustice.


    What I think you are saying is, if people knew the truth, they would know how to do away with injustice and evil. They did not do away with injustice and evil, therefore they dont know the truth.

    Technically incorrect because it is possible to know how to do away with evil and fail to do what is necessary in order to abrogate evil.

    This is relevant to my argument in the following regard, I argued that it is possible for us to know the truth. Once we ensure that we know the truth, it will be up to us to abrogate our problems.






    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    To say even, that logic is truth, is a lie. ?..
    I have no idea what you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    You can not infer an "ought" from an "is".?..
    That is right. This is the famous naturalistic fallacy. It has been used to motivate the argument that what is natural is not the same as what is good. Some ethicists have argued that if we discover the most natural way to behave, we will have discovered the best way to behave. This is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    Take Darwinism's role, the full extent of which has been the basis for purifying the gene pool, in the form of Eugenics. These weren't crazy illogical people, they were killing people they thought were impure and contaminating the gene pool, and doing what they were doing, because they thought they were right. It would be nice to airbrush out the role of such logic, from the evils of the world, but the evidence and proof here is simply a void. Your error in logic jumps from the page.".?..


    What you seem to be saying is, Darwinists did evil because they thought they were being logical. Some people do evil because they think they are being logical. Therefore some people should not be logical. Can you show that what the Darwinists did was evil and can you show that what they did, they did because they were being logical?



    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    The ontological, cosmological, teleological, mathematical fine tuning of the universe, and the moral arguments carry more weight as premises and evidence,..".?..
    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    t
    than your subjective opinion that belief in God is bad, because it'll make you feel bad, which is funny because that's based on "YOUR" feelings, not logic..".?..
    I am totally confused. What exactly is ontological here, or cosmological, and what exactly are the moral arguments about?

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    t
    than your subjective opinion that belief in God is bad, because it'll make you feel bad, which is funny because that's based on "YOUR" feelings, not logic..".?..
    What on Earth? How did you figure that?

    How does the moral, cosmological, ontological, teleological entities (whatever they are) suggest that God exists, or that the existence of God is good?










    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    In fact, the natural logical answer would be to deduce the arguments suggested, that the inference to the best explanation for why we are here, is in a search for what the uncaused first cause actually is...".?..

    Certainly, what is the first cause?

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    I submit to you that accepting that the world and universe is all there is, is the illogical and hopeless existential answer, fraught with more disappointment and more unhappiness than believing in a moral code you can't live up to.
    How?
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #58
    Senior Member paisley1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Shocked you don't know the premises for the existence of God, Solitarywalker? To convince me of your paragraph, it makes WAY more sense if worded like this....

    "A person may think it benefits them to believe in false gods, and it may seem rational to them at the time. Yet the decision itself to believe in false gods is irrational as false gods logically don't exist. I submit however, that believing in false gods in the long run shall do one more harm than good, despite having been beneficial initially. This is because the beliefs from the false gods generate unrealistic expectations within us because they don't match up with the facts of reality, which inevitably leads to disappointments. The most reliable way to attain long-term happiness is by accepting the world for what it is, this way your expectations will match reality more closely and in effect you shall be less likely to incur disappointments."

    Correct. If that's what you meant, than I wholeheartedly agree and everything else here, is simply for the satisfaction of your curiosity.

    The presupposition here is that the idea of God is somehow inconsistent with reality, when in fact God is completely consistent with reality. Only false god's that are made up and do not follow the facts of the universe, lead to what you are describing, so of course you will find false god's leading people to be deluded about reality. Correct. My argument is founded on the idea that God is the uncaused first cause, and therefore God is the truth ABOUT reality, and from God, everything follows logically and orderly, and the person would not be deluded at all but in a normal frame of mind.

    Now the argument's for the existence of God, that I'm surprised you don't know:

    The Ontological Argument:

    1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
    2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
    3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
    4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).
    5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
    6. Therefore, God exists.

    The Cosmological Argument:

    1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
    2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.
    3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
    4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

    The Teleological Argument

    1. All things that are designed were preconceived, intended, purposed or contrived.
    2. Preconception, intention, purpose, and contrivance necessitate an intellect, mind or will.
    3. All things that are irreducibly complex display intention and preconception.
    4. The universe contains non-man made things that are irreducibly complex.
    5. Those things display intention and preconception.
    6. Those things necessitate an intellect, mind or will.

    The Fine Tuning of the Universe Argument:

    Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
    Parameter and Max. Deviation
    Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10 to the power of 37
    Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10 to the power of 40
    Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10 to the power of 55
    Mass of Universe 1:10 to the power of 59
    Cosmological Constant 1:10 to the power of 120

    These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life. The possible answers are an intelligent uncaused first cause or a multiverse.


    The Moral Argument

    1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
    2. Objective moral values do exist. (They are valid and binding whether or not anyone believes in them or not)
    3. Therefore, God does exist.

    I can go into the Historical Argument, but it's probably too contentious for any of you.

    All of these arguments make inference to the best explanation and support normalcy not delusion, when believing in God.

    To quickly answer your question, the full extent of Darwinism, led to the understanding of how to make humanity better through purifying the gene pool, which led to a holocaust. Seemingly logical things can be completely immoral, logical fallacies. I'm simply making the argument, that you can not infer an "ought" from an "is". I'm not putting forward any new philosophical argument.
    Last edited by paisley1; 01-27-2009 at 08:46 PM.

  9. #59
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    Shocked you don't know the premises for the existence of God, Solitarywalker? To convince me of your paragraph, it makes WAY more sense if worded like this.....
    All of the arguments below have been famously refuted in the Critique of Pure Reason. Today, an overwhelming majority of metaphysicians and philosophers of religion regard those arguments as false for compelling reasons.

    Advanced Search

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "A person may think it benefits them to believe in false gods, and it may seem rational to them at the time. Yet the decision itself to believe in false gods is irrational as false gods logically don't exist. I submit however, that believing in false gods in the long run shall do one more harm than good, despite having been beneficial initially. This is because the beliefs from the false gods generate unrealistic expectations within us because they don't match up with the facts of reality, which inevitably leads to disappointments. The most reliable way to attain long-term happiness is by accepting the world for what it is, this way your expectations will match reality more closely and in effect you shall be less likely to incur disappointments.".....
    Any belief in God amounts to a falsehood. Therefore it is undesirable for the reasons you mentioned.



    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "The presupposition here is that the idea of God is somehow inconsistent with reality, when in fact God is completely consistent with reality..".....

    Oh, most-esteemed one! I certainly wish to know how that is the case !


    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "Only false god's that are made up and do not follow the facts of the universe, lead to what you are describing, so of course you will find false god's leading people to be deluded about reality. Correct. My argument is founded on the idea that God is the uncaused first cause, and therefore God is the truth ABOUT reality, and from God, everything follows logically and orderly, and the person would not be deluded at all but in a normal frame of mind. ..".....
    How is God the first cause?



    The Ontological Argument:


    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined)...".....
    God is defined as a being that is so great that it cannot be imagined. This amounts to saying that God is any entity so great that even the brightest of imaginations cannot conceive. On that note, any entity that is that difficult to imagine would be god. This could be the seemingly infinite cosmos, the fourth dimension, the sun, etc. In fact, the recent astrophysicists would tell us that there are many entities in our universe that are so great that they cannot be imagined completely. From the very little that we know of those entities, they are distinct from each other. That means that there is more than one entity that is so great that it cannot be imagined. Therefore they are many gods. What this has merely proved is that we should worship the cosmos as our deity and therefore has almost nothing to do with the vindication of the traditional theism propounded in the Old Testament.

    2.
    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "God exists as an idea in the mind.)...".....
    So does the square circle or a 5000 lb purple elephant. From this it does not follow that such entities exist in reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind..)...".....
    Some ideas exist both in the mind and can depict entities of reality. For example mathematics. The idea that there is a number such as 1000 exists in the mind and can also depict reality. For example, we can say that 1000 people have attended the concert. Some logical principles such as if A then B exist in the mind but can also be transferred to reality in the aforementioned ways. What can we learn from this? All of the above are logically coherent concepts, therefore they exist both in the mind and can exist in reality. God exists only in the mind because it is an incoherent concept. It cannot be used to describe anything of reality just like a false logical principle cannot, for example a contradictory proposition of logic.


    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist)...)...".....
    Watch what happens as an entailment of this proposition. Here it is assumed that God is an idea of the mind, a merely descriptive tool, exactly like a mathematical theorem. God is defined as simply an entity that is so great that even the brightest of imaginations cannot conceive of. Many entities therefore are to be regarded as God, as aforementioned. This does nothing to vindicate traditional theism.
    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.))...)...".....
    This says that there is a greatest being that we can imagine.
    6.
    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "Therefore, God exists..))...)...".....
    This also says that there is a greatest being we can imagine. Greatest being we can imagine is the same thing as God. The premise is identical with the conclusion. This argument is trivially valid, as it is not possible for the premise to be true and for the conclusion to be false as both carry the same truth values, yet the argument is unsound because the bare assertion fallacy is comitted. Or quite simply, the conclusion has no justification.

    The Cosmological Argument:

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "1. . "Every finite and contingent being has a cause...))...)...".....
    Indeed

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "2. Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself....))...)...".....
    Granted.


    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.....))...)...".....
    Granted.
    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist......))...)...".....
    Granted. What is the first cause?

    The Teleological Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "1. All things that are designed were preconceived, intended, purposed or contrived.......))...)...".....
    This proposition is making the same point twice. The definition of designed is intended, purposed or contrived.

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "2. Preconception, intention, purpose, and contrivance necessitate an intellect, mind or will........))...)...".....
    Yes, it is not possible to design anything without an intellect.

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "3. All things that are irreducibly complex display intention and preconception.........))...)...".....
    This argument is saying that if something is complex, it must have been designed. On what grounds?



    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "4. The universe contains non-man made things that are irreducibly complex..........))...)...".....
    Granted.


    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "5. Those things display intention and preconception...........))...)...".....
    They do not because we do not know if they were designed.



    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "6. Those things necessitate an intellect, mind or will............))...)...".....
    This is false because we do not know if those things were designed.

    The problem with this argument is that it asserts that all complex things must be designed, yet neglects to show why that is the case. It is for this reason unsound.

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "The Fine Tuning of the Universe Argument:

    Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
    Parameter and Max. Deviation
    Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10 to the power of 37
    Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10 to the power of 40
    Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10 to the power of 55
    Mass of Universe 1:10 to the power of 59
    Cosmological Constant 1:10 to the power of 120

    These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life. The possible answers are an intelligent uncaused first cause or a multiverse....
    How do any of these numbers show that there was an intelligent designer?




    [QUOTE=paisley1;510178]"The Moral Argument

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "[1. Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed.....
    What is an objective force? How is the objective force observed in morality?


    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "[2. Belief in God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives......
    What is God? What does the belief in God have to do with morality?

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "[3. Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives.......
    This statement makes the same point as the previous.

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "[I can go into the Historical Argument, but it's probably too contentious for any of you........
    No, no, please do!


    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "[All of these arguments make inference to the best explanation and support normalcy not delusion, when believing in God.........
    How?

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "[To quickly answer your question, the full extent of Darwinism, led to the understanding of how to make humanity better through purifying the gene pool, which led to a holocaust..
    Darwinist scientists may have discovered that the gene pool operations are possible. They made no ethical prescriptions, they merely depicted the nature of reality. Or quite simply stated that gene pool operations are possible and said nothing else besides that. They had nothing to do with holocaust. Holocaust is a result of the vagaries of Hitler's imagination. The Darwinists would have abhorred the practice.

    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "[Seemingly logical things can be completely immoral, logical fallacies. .
    Okay.


    Quote Originally Posted by paisley1 View Post
    "[I'm simply making the argument, that you can not infer an "ought" from an "is". I'm not putting forward any new philosophical argument.
    What does this claim have to do with your previous claim?
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  10. #60
    Senior Member paisley1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Socionics
    EIE None
    Posts
    369

    Default

    Any belief in God amounts to a falsehood. Therefore it is undesirable for the reasons you mentioned.
    False. Any belief in a false god. You've made a blanket statement, which is therefore false. Logical fallacy. I could just as easily make logical fallacies like, any belief in your experiences amounts to a falsehood. Therefore it is undesireable for the reasons you mentioned. You're infering that God is somehow incompatible with reality, which is false. How is that the case? If God created everything, he put everything in order, and therefore there is order and logic and meaning in reality. You would have the harder time arguing where order comes from based on the premise the universe is all that there is. I don't know why you can't infer the difference between intentionality and unintentionality.

    God is defined as a being that is so great that it cannot be imagined. This amounts to saying that God is any entity so great that even the brightest of imaginations cannot conceive. On that note, any entity that is that difficult to imagine would be god. This could be the seemingly infinite cosmos, the fourth dimension, the sun, etc. In fact, the recent astrophysicists would tell us that there are many entities in our universe that are so great that they cannot be imagined completely. From the very little that we know of those entities, they are distinct from each other. That means that there is more than one entity that is so great that it cannot be imagined. Therefore they are many gods. What this has merely proved is that we should worship the cosmos as our deity and therefore has almost nothing to do with the vindication of the traditional theism propounded in the Old Testament.
    Where does the infinite cosmos, 4th dimension, etc, infer logic or conscience? By definition those things you mention are less than the greatest thing that can be imagined. Conclusion and presupposition are false.

    Ok, you really don't understand the ontological argument, and are adding things that don't add up again. I'll let you stew on it some more.

    You get the Cosmological argument.

    The Teleological argument simply points or aims inference to the most likely explanation of what causes something to cause. I find it funny you don't understand the words "Display intention and preconception" as the attributes purpose and the inference to the best and most likely explanation. The argument is based on intentionality. Do you look at new data and make inference to the best explanation? Or do you look at new data and make a wild shot in the dark? Finally, you don't need a "why" to make an assertion for an "is". If I found an advanced piece of alien technology on the dark side of the moon, I would not need to know why it got there to infer the best explanation is that, some agency obviously put it there. Your conclusion is again false.

    The fine tuning argument shows a necessity of the initial conditions to be in a balance so high, that if those numbers were out in minutia, life would not exist. The inference to the best explanation is that it looks like a fixed lottery. Someone stacked the deck and organized chaos into order so it would come out this way. What is your explanation for why the initial conditions came out so perfectly? A multiverse? I'd really like to hear some reasons why this is beyond your realm of understanding?



    Darwinist scientists may have discovered that the gene pool operations are possible. They made no ethical prescriptions, they merely depicted the nature of reality. Or quite simply stated that gene pool operations are possible and said nothing else besides that. They had nothing to do with holocaust. Holocaust is a result of the vagaries of Hitler's imagination. The Darwinists would have abhorred the practice.
    Negative. Darwinists come in many shapes and sizes. There is a direct correlation between Darwinism, Natural Selection, moving the best gene forward, extermination of genes that are bad, and the practice of doing so, by whatever manifestation including scientists in labs or Nazi soldiers with guns and human furnaces. You're saying those scientists and nazi soldiers, couldn't be Darwinists, which is just stupid. Hitler wasn't erradic in his thinking, he was quite the opposite, very logical and very premeditated and wrote a book defining "his struggle" early on. Immoral yes, surprising, no.

    The "ought" from the "is" claim, is self explanatory. I don't know why you're having a problem connecting the dots. You can easily make the same claim for Islamic extremism which leads to doing bad things in the name of your religion. Evil can be logically deduced from any ideology, I'm just making the claim that the worsed of which in history is atheism, ie, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler. Direct connection between the lack of belief in God to evil.

Similar Threads

  1. How far divorced from books, film, TV and media portrayals is society becoming?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-05-2011, 01:21 AM
  2. [INFJ] INFJs and Single-Mindedness
    By Kiddo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 06:39 PM
  3. [INFJ] INFJs and Dating
    By Kiddo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 02-22-2009, 06:42 AM
  4. [INFJ] INFJ and Compliments
    By chippinchunk in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 01-24-2008, 09:20 AM
  5. [INFJ] INFJ and grief
    By tovlo in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-21-2007, 06:49 AM

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