Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 2:42 PM
183 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, kjsimons, Meddle, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 175 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,583 Year: 2,620/19,786 Month: 702/1,918 Week: 290/266 Day: 27/35 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
23242526
27
28Next
Author Topic:   God says this, and God says that
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 398 of 417 (28079)
12-29-2002 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by Chavalon
12-29-2002 7:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chavalon:
Oh come on, Forgiven. An axiom is a basic assumption.

i knew what the word meant, i was looking for an example based on my quote, that's all...

quote:
You seem to believe that I hold these beliefs through self deception, love of sin and fear of divine perfection. In the end it's all ipse dixit on both sides, as one would expect of this subject matter.

Go well.

'El chavalón'


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Chavalon, posted 12-29-2002 7:30 PM Chavalon has not yet responded

Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 399 of 417 (28087)
12-29-2002 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by forgiven
12-28-2002 2:05 PM


Well I noticed you snipped out a great deal of what I posted to you, but no matter.

What you've really been doing is substituing the "God of the Gaps" into this discussion. All of your talk about "what is logic" and yout "worldview" and the like are just other attempts at asking "Where did it all come from". Yes, you'll claim that you've never asserted that particular claim but you do. If I or someone were to tell you that logic is just a specific form memory which itself is just a collection of neuro-chemicals in specific orders that trigger physical responces, you'll ask "So why do they work that way". This is just another form of transitional fossils. You will continue to look for whatever you can to avoid seeing that maybe, just maybe, your worldview is wrong and there is no need for any god, let alone your God.

So what is logic? For a quick brief, logic would be simply be equated to cause and effect. Another form could be pattern recognition. That all depends on who you talk to at the time. Humans did not invent cause and effect, but we have a word for it. Simple logic is if A is less than B, and B is less than C, then logic would dictate that A is less than C. As the problem become more complex, so too would the answer and the flow at which one would arrive at the answer. Nothing truly mystical there.

Your whole arguement is this: "Where did it come from?"

Your answer, your "worldview" as it were, is: "God gave us all of that".

Nevermind it does not answer the question, "Where did God come from". You'll feel good and oh so smart knowing you have the answer. The problem is even if morality, logic, emotions, etc., all came from a divine being, it does not follow it came from your God. Just because we can't, yet at least, explain why the mind works as it does, what many have called the "Ghost in the Machine", but unless people like you are put in charge of science maybe one day we will.

So forgiven, in you "worldview" where does logic come from?

------------------
When all else fails, check the manual


This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 2:05 PM forgiven has not yet responded

Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 400 of 417 (28089)
12-29-2002 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by Chavalon
12-29-2002 7:30 PM


What forgiven is really trying to do is show that all of these things one could call metaphysical, morality, logic, good/evil, and more are divine gifts. Just because he has nothing to show that even if they were, it does not mean they come from his God.

He's challenged basic things to throw a person out of their train of thought to muddle the issue. In the end, he's pulling another "God of the Gaps" approach to show us all that there is a real need to have a deity to give all of those emotions, freewil, and such. While it may be sometime before we learn about our minds and how they work, as it's not explained now, he'll use it to show that a god is needed to get these things done.

------------------
When all else fails, check the manual


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Chavalon, posted 12-29-2002 7:30 PM Chavalon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by John, posted 12-30-2002 9:56 AM Mr. Davies has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 401 of 417 (28110)
12-30-2002 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Mr. Davies
12-29-2002 10:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
What forgiven is really trying to do is show that all of these things one could call metaphysical, morality, logic, good/evil, and more are divine gifts.

I've been through this same romp with forgiven. It is interesting to see the same assertions recur.

quote:
He's challenged basic things to throw a person out of their train of thought to muddle the issue.

Actually, I think forgiven quite believes what he says. Any muddling isn't intentional.

quote:
In the end, he's pulling another "God of the Gaps" approach to show us all that there is a real need to have a deity to give all of those emotions, freewil, and such.

If you read forgiven carefully you'll notice how extraordinarily Platonic he is. He treats ideas and concepts as if they were independently existing things. This is the base for his statements that atheists cannot account for metaphysical entities. The catch is that forgiven simply assumes that such entities exist, so the argument is toothless.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-29-2002 10:55 PM Mr. Davies has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-30-2002 10:36 AM John has not yet responded
 Message 403 by forgiven, posted 12-30-2002 6:56 PM John has responded

Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 402 of 417 (28115)
12-30-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by John
12-30-2002 9:56 AM


From John:

quote:
quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Davies:

quote:
What forgiven is really trying to do is show that all of these things one could call metaphysical, morality, logic, good/evil, and more are divine gifts.

I've been through this same romp with forgiven. It is interesting to see the same assertions recur.


Hey, go with what you think is your strength, no matter how weak it is.

quote:
Actually, I think forgiven quite believes what he says. Any muddling isn't intentional.

Perhaps.

quote:
If you read forgiven carefully you'll notice how extraordinarily Platonic he is. He treats ideas and concepts as if they were independently existing things. This is the base for his statements that atheists cannot account for metaphysical entities. The catch is that forgiven simply assumes that such entities exist, so the argument is toothless.

True. His ASSERTION is that they are seperate entities and that they were created. Sadly he can't even show that his God is the one responsible for any of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by John, posted 12-30-2002 9:56 AM John has not yet responded

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 403 of 417 (28147)
12-30-2002 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by John
12-30-2002 9:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
If you read forgiven carefully you'll notice how extraordinarily Platonic he is. He treats ideas and concepts as if they were independently existing things. This is the base for his statements that atheists cannot account for metaphysical entities. The catch is that forgiven simply assumes that such entities exist, so the argument is toothless.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by John, posted 12-30-2002 9:56 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by John, posted 12-30-2002 11:01 PM forgiven has responded

Delshad
Inactive Member


Message 404 of 417 (28148)
12-30-2002 7:47 PM


Sorry for bumping in Forgiven, but I have a question....what signifies a materialist?
I have always thought that materialists were the people who during the late 19:th century thought that materia had always existed and that there was no beginning.
But after he discovery of the Big Bang, that stagnant worldview was replaced by a universe with a beginning that was undefined, or at its peak based upon axioms.

What defines a materialist in the sense you are using the word and can a religious person be a materialist too?


Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by forgiven, posted 12-30-2002 8:32 PM Delshad has not yet responded

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 405 of 417 (28149)
12-30-2002 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Delshad
12-30-2002 7:47 PM


hi delshad

quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Sorry for bumping in Forgiven, but I have a question....what signifies a materialist?

~~~snip~~~

What defines a materialist in the sense you are using the word and can a religious person be a materialist too?


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Delshad, posted 12-30-2002 7:47 PM Delshad has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 406 of 417 (28161)
12-30-2002 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by forgiven
12-30-2002 6:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
hi john, hope you're feeling better...

thanks... i am-- a little.

quote:
i don't think atheists can account for metaphysical entities, and you're quite right that i "simply assume" they exist...

ummm..... if you simply assume, there is no reason anyone has to account for them. It is something you made up. Big deal.

quote:
if i recall, nobody ever quite came out and said the law of non-contradiction didn't exist before man

Calling something 'the law of non-contradiction' doesn't make it a thing either. This the the error you make repeatedly -- assuming that concepts that have names are actually things. See your own statement below:

quote:
but naming something isn't the same as creating it...

Yes, indeed. Nor is naming something proof that it is a metaphysical thing, yet this is precisely what you insist.

quote:
either quasars predated man or they didn't... either the laws of logic predated man or they didn't...

This is meaningless. Either object A is or it isn't. Very profound.

The implicit comparison of energy jets associated with super-massive black holes and an artificial analytical system is laughable.

quote:
and if they did, i maintain i can account for them from within my worldview and the atheist (materialist) can't

You assume that meta-entities exist, ie. you make them up, and then gloat that you can account for them by making up more stuff? How can you take yourself seriously?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by forgiven, posted 12-30-2002 6:56 PM forgiven has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by forgiven, posted 12-31-2002 6:43 AM John has responded

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 407 of 417 (28178)
12-31-2002 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by John
12-30-2002 11:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

quote:
f:
i don't think atheists can account for metaphysical entities, and you're quite right that i "simply assume" they exist...

ummm..... if you simply assume, there is no reason anyone has to account for them. It is something you made up. Big deal.

quote:
f:
if i recall, nobody ever quite came out and said the law of non-contradiction didn't exist before man

Calling something 'the law of non-contradiction' doesn't make it a thing either. This the the error you make repeatedly -- assuming that concepts that have names are actually things. See your own statement below:

quote:
f:
but naming something isn't the same as creating it...

Yes, indeed. Nor is naming something proof that it is a metaphysical thing, yet this is precisely what you insist.

quote:
f:
either quasars predated man or they didn't... either the laws of logic predated man or they didn't...

This is meaningless. Either object A is or it isn't. Very profound.

The implicit comparison of energy jets associated with super-massive black holes and an artificial analytical system is laughable.

quote:
f:
and if they did, i maintain i can account for them from within my worldview and the atheist (materialist) can't

You assume that meta-entities exist, ie. you make them up, and then gloat that you can account for them by making up more stuff? How can you take yourself seriously?


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 all
a) 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)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by John, posted 12-30-2002 11:01 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by John, posted 12-31-2002 10:33 AM forgiven has responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 408 of 417 (28192)
12-31-2002 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by forgiven
12-31-2002 6:43 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
maybe i see the problem here... do you deny the laws of logic exist?

The laws of logic are concepts-- descriptions-- not THINGS. They are derived from our experiences of the world. The underlying physics may be stable, and that isn't looking too good, but the physics isn't the DESCRIPTIONS we have made up to describe them.

quote:
one would think so from this post, one would think that you deny the law of non-contradiction's existence

ummm.... it doesn't exist. It is a concept we made up to describe the world around us, and it applies almost universally. Almost, but not quite... particle physics has been shooting this myth down for nearly a century. Welcome to the present.

quote:
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...

It is you who are attempting a dictionary war. This is precisely what I was pointing out. "We have the word 'logic' so logic is a meta-thingie. We have the 'love' so love is a meta-thingie." Yes? Sorry, but no. Labelling something does not make it exist. A hundred years ago much of physics was based on something called 'ether.' Does ether exist in the meta-world as a thing-in-itself, or was it just a concept that didn't work out well? Applying your logic, ether exists as a meta-thingie. In fact, everything I, or anyone else, can make up exists as a meta-thingie. Its silly. Everything exists, lets go home and play dominoes.

quote:
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?

Actually, I said what I said above, that the underlying physics existed but that logic is our invention, like mathematics and language.

quote:
john, how can you take yourself seriously? do you really think i made up the laws of logic?

If I ever say that YOU made up the laws of logic then I certainly couldn't take myself seriously. But that isn't what I have said.

quote:
and then that i gloat over this?

Indeed you do gloat over being able to account for things which you merely assume exist. It is comical, really. I wish you could get the joke. You just make stuff up and challenge everyone else to account for that stuff. LOL.....

This is probably where you got the notion that I accuse you of making up the laws of logic. I accuse you not of making up those laws, but of making them into metaphysical things.

quote:
try a little less rancor and a little more rational argumentation...

Rational? Make up stuff and challenge everyone to account for it? LOL.....

quote:
don't come at this as if logic doesn't exist, john, or as if someone made it up...

I'm sorry. Answer the question, BUT ONLY GIVE THE ANSWER FORGIVEN WANTS!!!!! LOL.......................... LOL..................... LOL................. LOL....................

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by forgiven, posted 12-31-2002 6:43 AM forgiven has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by forgiven, posted 12-31-2002 5:07 PM John has responded

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 409 of 417 (28221)
12-31-2002 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by John
12-31-2002 10:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
maybe i see the problem here... do you deny the laws of logic exist?

The laws of logic are concepts-- descriptions-- not THINGS. They are derived from our experiences of the world. The underlying physics may be stable, and that isn't looking too good, but the physics isn't the DESCRIPTIONS we have made up to describe them.


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by John, posted 12-31-2002 10:33 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by John, posted 01-01-2003 6:30 PM forgiven has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 410 of 417 (28258)
01-01-2003 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by forgiven
12-31-2002 5:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
ok john...

You seem to be leaving us, so this may be pointless, but it will get the marker off my reply list.

quote:
you seem to be saying that nothing exists that isn't material...

Where did I say anything about matter or materialism? Materialism is a description of observation, and strict materialism doesn't describe observation very well. But we've been through this before, and at some length. How quickly you forget.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by forgiven, posted 12-31-2002 5:07 PM forgiven has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 212 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 411 of 417 (29252)
01-16-2003 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by funkmasterfreaky
12-23-2002 10:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I'm confused, what difference? Difference in what?


The difference between a "real" religious experience and "just emotions", according to you.

How do we tell the difference between what someone experiences in their church and what they experience while certain parts of their brains are being activated in an experimental setting?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-23-2002 10:08 PM funkmasterfreaky has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 01-28-2003 2:35 AM nator has not yet responded

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 412 of 417 (30410)
01-28-2003 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by nator
01-16-2003 7:40 AM


I still don't know what a religious experience is. It's nothing I know anything about. We may have emotional reactions to something we have learned.

Religious experience is something I am skeptical of.

------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by nator, posted 01-16-2003 7:40 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-28-2003 4:25 AM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded
 Message 414 by John, posted 01-28-2003 9:05 AM funkmasterfreaky has responded

RewPrev1
...
23242526
27
28Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019