|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God says this, and God says that | |||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: the discussion isn't exclusive to God (or gods)... the discussion is on metaphysical entities, things not suspended in time and space... their origin doesn't matter at the moment, what matters is whether or not you demand that the laws of logic, for example, be empirically verified or do you accept them a priori? if the latter, you argue against yourself
quote: then why are you here? anyone can say "i don't care that i have no answers, yours are wrong neener neener"... so your worldview is consistent eh? then tell me whether or not transcendental entities exist or if only the material is real
quote: how can you continue to miss the most elementary things? whether or not my explanations appease you, at least i have them!!... you have none, you admit as much... you simply say you are right and that's all there is to it, no argument needed *sticking your fingers in your ears and making noises*... that's unacceptable
quote: LOLOL... i keep hoping some of your more intellectually honest brother atheists will come along and tell you how wrong you are, but maybe the loyalty runs too deep... once more, it isn't enough to assert that your worldview is consistent while denying the existence of things necessary to make it so... "logic exists but God doesn't" you say... "why?" i ask... "just because and that's consistent and i don't have to explain anything so there" you say
quote: what was created by men? reason? logic? morality?... you are confused as to the terms 'descriptive' and 'proscriptive' i think... prove, empirically, that logic exists... you demand such proof of others, hold yourself to your own standard
quote: i've puposely abstained from naming individual fallacies in your posts because it would be too tiring... but try not to say what it is i assert unless i actually assert something... i can explain what i believe, i can account for both material and metaphysical entities... you can't... and what's worse, you admit you can't and say you don't have to... arbitrariness is irrational...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i don't agree that this lack of empirical verification is itself proof of a truth claim being false
quote: so metaphysical entities do exist in buddhism, yet they aren't to be mentioned... is that accurate?... in a sense i agree with this... unless a metaphysical entity had the means and proclivity to reveal something of his/her/its nature, speaking of that nature is bound to be prone to error... however, to say that some such entity hasn't revealed its nature is to beg the question... christians say that God has done just that, thus we are not bound by the material, we can account for things not hung in time and space... buddhism says, not only is it wrong to seek to understand metaphysics, it's wrong to acknowledge its existence... why is it wrong? because you might be in error... but maybe i've misunderstood you
Rather, he started from a different point: All existence is suffering.The true origination of suffering has been discovered. The stopping of that suffering is possible. The way leading to the stopping of suffering is the Eight-fold path: 1. Right Understanding2. Right Thought 3. Right Speech 4. Right Action 5. Right Livelihood 6. Right Effort 7. Right Mindfulness 8. Right Concentration A non-theistic system of morality. It is claimed that the truth of these assertions can be verified by living them. Thus it is - in a rather subjective way - pragmatic and empirical. Some say that it is a philosophy rather than a religion, but it is a truth claim of buddhism that to achieve all of this is to see everything clearly (and of course wordlessly), transcending oneself and achieving a timeless, heaven-like state of conciousness. Thus there is a promise of transcendence, but without any claims about the supernatural, so it is both religious and atheistic. religious in the sense that it places each individual person in a deified position... at least that's how it seems to me... buddhism seems to have simply replaced one God with many without attempting to explain how non-material entities exist... in fact, buddhism seems to frown upon anyone actually asking the question... why is that? is there some quality to be found in the ineffableness of an endeavor that makes it meaningless? to me this seems like an attempt to have one's cake and eat it too... it seems to say, the material isn't all there is therefore we are justified in utilizing metaphysical entities... but these entities can't be discussed, their origins can't be understood... to do so, to even make the attempt, is to fall into error...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
i think this small section shows exactly where you are missing the point...
quote: so man "created" laws of logic, did he?... i figured you thought that which is why i said the below
quote: to point to the result of a metaphysical entity such as logic is descriptive... it doesn't tell us whether or not logic should exist, it can't account for that existence... to tell or show that is prescriptive... what you label sophistry is in fact a very important part of one's ability to debate ratinally... mixing and matching terms to serve your purpose isn't allowed... i don't blame you for not "biting"... good judgement... the fact remains, you can't account for metaphysical entities in your worldview... and you know this, which is why you fear making a case
|
|||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i agree that arguing over the existence of such things as ethics is trivial compared to the suffering around us... i think metaphysical entities can be proven using logic, but can't be proven in an empirical sense... God is spirit, thus supernatural, but he has given us much in the way of physical evidence... we have the testimony of his son, Jesus of Nazareth... we have creation itself... man knows God exists but man hides this knowledge from himself, man deceives himself...
quote: we do have a God-like nature, since we're created in his image... christianity is based on the person and life of Jesus... what makes it so hateful to many is its mention of sin and of the necessity to turn from this sin... people hate the thought of any God, usually, but a perfectly holy God is just too much... a God that doesn't just wink at our sins but tells us what they are and what they do... sin leads to death, it's fatal on all who have it... and being born is all that's necessary... it kills both the body and the spirit... our spirits can be reborn, can be given new life, here on earth... our bodies will have to wait... the way to God is Jesus, the truth of God is Jesus, the life of God is Jesus... we can have all three, but only if we have Jesus i get very few people who are sincerely seeking to understand these things, and even those usually email me privately rather than post publicly... i usually get people who have a presuppostion that God is a lie, Jesus is a lie, and unless i can prove something that itself is a proof of the lie... christianity is not difficult to understand, it is simple in fact... giving up one's pride, abandoning one's centricity in the universe, is the hard part... proclaiming Jesus as Lord is something people do not want to do they'd rather be their own lord
|
|||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: what do you mean by axioms, as they apply to my statement above? i really don't know a lot about buddhism... some, but not a lot... for example, i don't know how buddhists account for things like logic or love... and from what i gathered from your previous post, buddhists don't think it's right to even ask... i think that's what you wrote
|
|||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i knew what the word meant, i was looking for an example based on my quote, that's all...
quote: actually i was just trying to understand a little about the buddhist worldview, nothing more... while my religion teaches, and i believe, what you said regarding self-deception et al, i was simply trying to find out how buddhists accounted for those metaphysical ideas... nothing more... take care
|
|||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: hi john, hope you're feeling better... i don't think atheists can account for metaphysical entities, and you're quite right that i "simply assume" they exist... if i recall, nobody ever quite came out and said the law of non-contradiction didn't exist before man, nobody ever came out and said the primordial soup from which life emerged was and was not that soup at the same time in the same way... man might categorize things, man might call a quasar a quasar, but naming something isn't the same as creating it... either quasars predated man or they didn't... either the laws of logic predated man or they didn't... and if they did, i maintain i can account for them from within my worldview and the atheist (materialist) can't
|
|||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
hi delshad
quote: i'm using the word to mean one who denies the existence of anything not suspended in time and space... anything metaphysical or transcendental, for example... a materialist, in this sense, would by definition believe that everything that happens is determined... even physicists admit this, especially based on the "old" physics... with quantum physics (and its reliance on randomness) some have tried to show that such things as free will exist, but i don't think a quantum view of the universe solves that problem added by edit: joz and i are talking about this in the 'free will' thread in 'faith and belief' [This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: maybe i see the problem here... do you deny the laws of logic exist? one would think so from this post, one would think that you deny the law of non-contradiction's existence, accusing me of "assuming that concepts that have names are actually things"... this is beneath you, john, it appears to be another attempt at a "dictionary war" on your part... "define thing" etc... if you don't deny laws of logic, are they suspended in time and space? in another post you said of course logic exists, but man "created" it, that it didn't exist before man labeled it... do you still maintain this indefensible view? john, how can you take yourself seriously? do you really think i made up the laws of logic? and then that i gloat over this? you tell me, john... do they exist or not? if they do exist, did they predate man or not? it's easy to dismiss a position by saying "this is meaningless" but it's not quite so easy showing why... try a little less rancor and a little more rational argumentation... don't come at this as if logic doesn't exist, john, or as if someone made it up... tell us alla) do laws of logic exist? b) if so, are they suspended in time and space? c) if so, do they predate man (as quasars do)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: ok john... you seem to be saying that nothing exists that isn't material... before i answer the rest of your post, is that an accurate representation of your views?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024