Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 347

Thread: Logically rationalize God

  1. #81
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    2,166
    Mentioned
    149 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tearsofaclown View Post
    This sounds like pluralism by William James. Which rejects Monism. Everything is externally related.


    Pragmatically interpreted, pluralism or the doctrine that it is many means only that the sundry parts of reality may be externally related. Everything you can think of, however vast or inclusive, has on the pluralistic view a genuinely "external" environment of some sort or amount. Things are "with" one another in many ways, but nothing includes everything, or dominates over everything. The word "and" trails along after every sentence. Something always escapes. "Ever not quite" has to be said of the best attempts made anywhere in the universe at attaining all-inclusiveness. The pluralistic world is thus more like a federal republic than like an empire or a kingdom. However much may be collected, however much may report itself as present at any effective centre of consciousness or action, something else is self-governed and absent and unreduced to unity.

    Monism, on the other hand, insists that when you come down to reality as such, to the reality of realities, everything is present to everything else in one vast instantaneous co-implicated completeness�nothing can in any sense, functional or substantial, be really absent from anything else, all things interpenetrate and telescope together in the great total conflux.

    For pluralism, all that we are required to admit as the constitution of reality is what we ourselves find empirically realized in every minimum of finite life. Briefly it is this, that nothing real is absolutely simple, that every smallest bit of experience is a multum in parvo plurally related, that each relation is one aspect, character, or function, way of its being taken, or way of its taking something else; and that a bit of reality when actively engaged in one of these relations simultaneously. The relations are not all what the French call solidaires with one another. Without losing its identity a thing can either take up or drop another thing, like the log I spoke of, which by taking up new carriers and dropping old ones can travel anywhere with a light escort.


    For monism, on the contrary, everything, whether we realize it or not, drags the whole universe along with itself and drops nothing. The log starts and arrives with all its carriers supporting it. If a thing were once disconnected, it could never be connected again, according to monism. The pragmatic difference between the two systems is thus a definite one. It is just thus, that if a is once out of sight of b or out of touch with it, or, more briefly, "out" of it at all, then, according to monism, it must always remain so, they can never get together; whereas pluralism admits that on another occasion they may work together, or in some way be connected again. Monism allows for no such things as "other occasions" in reality in "real " or absolute reality, that is.


    The difference I try to describe amounts, you see, to nothing more than the difference between what I formerly called the each-form and the all-form of reality. Pluralism lets things really exist in the each-form or distributively. Monism thinks that the all-form or collective-unit form is the only form that is rational. The all-form allows of no taking up and dropping of connexions, for in the all the parts are essentially and eternally co-implicated. In the each-form, on the contrary, a thing may be connected by intermediary things, with a thing with which it has no immediate or essential connexion. It is thus at all times in many possible connexions, which are not necessarily actualized at the moment. They depend on which actual path of intermediation it may functionally strike into: the word "or" names a genuine reality. Thus, as I speak here, I may look ahead or to the right or to the left, and in either case the intervening space and air and aether enable me to see the faces of a different portion of this audience. My being here is independent of any one set of these faces.

    James on God. Like humans, God cannot know all he knows at one time all the time. He is liable to forget. God has a subconscious in a sense that is he unaware of totally and is overlapped by a consciousness.


    "God's consciousness," says Professor Royce,[2] "forms in its wholeness one luminously transparent conscious moment" -this is the type of noetic unity on which rationalism insists. Empiricism on the other hand is satisfied with the type of noetic unity that is humanly familiar. Everything gets known by some knower along with something else; but the knowers may in the end be irreducibly many, and the greatest knower of them all may yet not know the whole of everything, or even know what he does know at one single stroke: - he may be liable to forget. Whichever type obtained, the world would still be a universe noetically. Its parts would be conjoined by knowledge, but in the one case the knowledge would be absolutely unified, in the other it would be strung along and overlapped.
    .... I said that it IS reducible to unity, in my second last sentence.

  2. #82
    coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Trumpistan
    TIM
    Not Sh!t
    Posts
    1,974
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    God is the Universe. Since the Universe has order, Cartesian dualism is false, and it's possible (though not a given) to create and find objective meaning outside in the world, never mind that mind and personality must be part of the grand order of things in order to reject dualism and thoughts cannot be epiphenomenal in an non-dualistic universe, it makes much more sense to say there is a God than to say there is no God based on the definition of a god despite the common logical argument that pantheism is atheism.

    It's also possible to be a god. Some organisms don't die, though all people that we know of have died as far as anyone knows. Bio-electro-chemical processes sustaining life of an organism are interesting and complicated and potentially reversible and capable of being prolonged indefinitely. I don't believe such processes have been transferred to some sort of "spirit" floating around in any case ever simply because Heaven is for dweebs but I wouldn't completely rule out such a phenomenon. Throwing lightning bolts, flying, turning invisible, reading minds, etc. is definitely possible but usually not cost effective once you take the actual means of doing "magic" things like that into account. People said lightning is a god, money is a god, etc. so being one with that is the same. So the Universe is God and if you channel it you can be a god, and if you go against it (via deception) you can go against God and go to Hell.
    Last edited by coeruleum; 09-09-2019 at 07:44 AM.

  3. #83
    coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Trumpistan
    TIM
    Not Sh!t
    Posts
    1,974
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All non-pantheist gods are stupid because they amount to making a finite being infinite. For example, let's say there's an invisible guy walking around smiting people and making laws so when people die they can go to Heaven if they follow them or Hell if they don't. How does he turn invisible? How does he smite people? Where are Heaven and Hell? What happens when you die? Once you start looking at those questions, you could go kill God or run out of Hell or something like people actually did in various myths. On the other hand atheism still takes a static view of humanity and just removes Smiteman from the picture and gives you chaos and nothingness. Chaos and nothingness exist, but humanity has been to the moon and we've raised the recently-dead so I don't buy that people are fundamentally without agency in a doomed and meaningless universe or there's some fixed "human condition" similar to how people now live. We're not fated to happiness and rainbows if we sit on our buttocks either, but there is real and even potentially cosmic agency for people in non-Cartesian reality. I think you need a relationship with the Universe because that's the actual nature of things.

    If these are difficult to read, then, I sure hope these posts are nearly impossible to follow. I took so many pains for knowledge in an anti-elitist fascist country and it wasn't for nothing.

  4. #84
    coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Trumpistan
    TIM
    Not Sh!t
    Posts
    1,974
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    Arguments from the nature of the mind's ability to perceive the world can be made to defend the likelihood of a god, but they are hardly evidence of the existence of any specific god as past cultures knew him, that is, as the Abrahamic god or a Hindu god. On the other hand, arguments both from specific and nonspecific understandings of god's nature have been used by those that claim to understand him, as justification for fettering or persecuting those who will never be his children, in the physical world.
    And that's just annoying.
    That's exactly the argument I've made. I don't think you're allowed to shoot down an argument solely because you think it's more detrimental than beneficial, but, even if you do, I think it's more beneficial to have a non-specific god than to have no god. Having no god always turns into a hedonistic philosophy based on avoiding pain, which I think is invalid. What if we could make humans live forever naturalistically by editing genes so we don't age combined with repairing broken organs like in Star Trek? While I think eternal biological life is never guaranteed, the fact that it's possible in theory and there are no inherent human limitations makes me feel inclined to separate the pantheist god from atheism based on having very different results of belief. Apparently when astronauts first landed on the Moon they attributed it to God, and people in previous times would definitely consider humans on the Moon a supernatural type phenomenon. Atheism always turns into an inversion of the religion it rejects, such as: we need God to go to the heavens, and there is no God, therefore we can't go to the heavens, while pantheism says instead of being slaves to Sky Wizard, we work our own miracles.

  5. #85
    Investigator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am Christian which makes me Theistic, but I am not religious in the worldly sense. I believe God's existence is logically provable and I also believe the rules that he wants us to follow are also a priori, along with the fundamental reasons for these rules.

    I think I sketch of God's existence would look something like Descartes Ontological Argument:

    1. Our idea of God is an all perfect being. In other words, a being that has perfection in "all areas."
    2. Existence is a perfection.
    3. Therefore God must exist.

    Common Criticisms of this sketch
    1. Can't I assign the property of perfection to other things like unicorns and "deduce them into existence."
    Rebuttal: Well we can't picture a perfect being with our mind, we can only make generalizations. For a spaghetti monster, we can picture what a spaghetti monster would look like making it already flawed. Now, let's not get this confused with Jesus who I believe came as God within a human body. The human body in of itself wasn't God, but the being using it was. Why can't God use a spaghetti monster or a unicorn? I mean I guess hypothetically God could do that, but those things (the spaghetti monster, unicorn, etc.) in of themselves wouldn't be God.
    2. Isn't the idea of perfection kinda vague? Well not really. Descartes definition for perfection in of itself is a positive trait. For example, you wouldn't say weakness is a perfection, as weakness is merely the absence of power. A healthy food for thought would be to consider if we did consider weakness to be a perfection and figure out why this doesn't make sense.

    For a more rigorous proof, I invite you to check out Godel's Ontological Argument if you know modal logic.

    As for being Christian, I think this is at least a posteriori knowledge. There are many historical documents of Jesus's existence and his persecution. Along with his injuries, and sitings of him after he sustained these injuries (which would not be humanly possible based on the reported injuries).

  6. #86
    coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Trumpistan
    TIM
    Not Sh!t
    Posts
    1,974
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's such a bad argument by my standards. It assumes Cartesian dualism and it assumes that traits are inherently positive or negative a priori. The absence thing is such an awful argument because I can say goodness is the absence of badness. For example, I had some gingko leaves that went bad (don't store gingko leaves in a jar, they don't dry out and will grow mold.) When they had no mold, they were good, but then they gained mold and went bad. Is God a foul being covered in mold?

    As to Cartesian dualism, if you believe Jesus was God, then Jesus was partially his body. No body, no Jesus, so using Occam's razor Jesus's body was part of Jesus. I'm not going to say all of Jesus because obviously God extends beyond that in Christian texts and I think all people extend beyond their fleshly bodies even without having to argue about Jesus or religion.

    I also don't find the idea of something being at least partially visible and being flawed convincing. So, if I have a blank piece of paper, that's the perfect work of art, but if I become the next da Vinci toiling for years, I'm actually the worst artist? Let's all go blind then so we can see no evil. Maybe Hell just means eternal existence and Heaven is where we don't exist, like Christian God.

  7. #87
    Investigator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    That's such a bad argument by my standards. It assumes Cartesian dualism and it assumes that traits are inherently positive or negative a priori. The absence thing is such an awful argument because I can say goodness is the absence of badness. For example, I had some gingko leaves that went bad (don't store gingko leaves in a jar, they don't dry out and will grow mold.) When they had no mold, they were good, but then they gained mold and went bad. Is God a foul being covered in mold?

    As to Cartesian dualism, if you believe Jesus was God, then Jesus was partially his body. No body, no Jesus, so using Occam's razor Jesus's body was part of Jesus. I'm not going to say all of Jesus because obviously God extends beyond that in Christian texts and I think all people extend beyond their fleshly bodies even without having to argue about Jesus or religion.

    I also don't find the idea of something being at least partially visible and being flawed convincing. So, if I have a blank piece of paper, that's the perfect work of art, but if I become the next da Vinci toiling for years, I'm actually the worst artist? Let's all go blind then so we can see no evil. Maybe Hell just means eternal existence and Heaven is where we don't exist, like Christian God.
    Hmm your doubt for the validity of my argument based on the reasons you have put forward suggests a sense of impracticality within yourself. I believe unintuitive philosophical arguments may sound witty at first, but prove have very little application. Why do I say this? Let's go to the thought bubble:

    A man shows up and he says that there will be a huge battle in your homeland. He then asks you if you want to be bestowed enough power to protect you and your love ones at no cost at all to you. He also says without this power, many of your love ones will die. Assuming that you believe the man's offer, would you take the power? Most people would say yes. This is a sign of a priori assessment of power as a positive trait to have. Though I am not sure if you are going to be convinced by signs. Consider it valid posteriori knowledge.

    Now, I understand the point that you're making with regard to the the time contingency of the quality of perfection. But you fail to understand that timelessness is a property that can be assigned to an object or property. In fact, most people fail to understand is that the cardinality of the set of properties that can assigned to an object is at least similar to that of a countable set. Now what if we added continuity to our properties (i.e X is Y times more intelligent than Z) then the cardinality would be that of the real numbers. If we were to do that, it would be very hard to contest Descartes's argument. So in regards to your gingko leaves, the object's properties are not timeless, so this will affect the quality of the leaf. This is why we alter the definition of good every time we jump from object to object especially when we take time into account. However, to be a perfect being, you must have good traits in all areas (this is insight into Godel's ontological argument) all the time. I don't know what you think of Kant, but he also thought that you couldn't ever assess temporal objects if you did not have some notion of space and time.

    Hmm... As for your body argument. I am not completely sure what your getting at. Is a puppet a part of his master? Would a proxy be considered a part of the entity they are standing in for? For example, Athleticism is a property you assign to my body, not myself.

    Maybe read into Godel, you might be more satisfied with his rigor.

  8. #88
    coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Trumpistan
    TIM
    Not Sh!t
    Posts
    1,974
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've read Gödel long ago.

    Who's making the deal? If it's the Devil or a genie, we know how that goes. You gain the power, but you kill yourself with it by mistake since it can't be controlled, or it costs your family instead of you, or the government turns you into their pawn. I'd be incredibly suspicious of any mysterious person promising me a power. Anyways, why would I only take enough power to protect my family? Am I some sort of prepper now? It might be better to die than lose so much status, nights at concerts, days at galleries, cheap import beer, encyclopedias' worth of knowledge of sacred Nature, a life's story, arcing course of purpose. I'd probably try to kill him and take whatever he's hiding and stop the war, or win it at risk to myself for the future of my homeland and civilization. And if I can't take it, good riddance to one of the agents of destruction! And if I can't kill him, let me inspire all the land with the real power, Truth! Anyone who can give you such a power "cost-free" is one of the causes of your problems and doing a bait-and-switch and you know it.

    Many properties of a ginkgo leaf are effectively timeless. A ginkgo leaf comes from a ginkgo tree, and this is an inherent and not contingent property of them. Even after I destroyed them, their origins are still intact. The fact that a ginkgo leaf has two sections and not one is not a contingent property. The fact that molds grow in damp and dark places is not a contingent property. A contingent property is always contingent on something.

    I assign athleticism to people all the time. People who play sports and exercise are called athletic and people who participate in competitions like football matches and events like marathons are called athletes. I would call an athlete's body athletic rather than vice versa, since the same type of body could be achieved through, say, physical labor.

    Good is relative. Would a career as the perfect musician be ruined by having first been the perfect waiter? Oh wait, nothing is perfect in any way at all, except God, who does not exist. Let's destroy everything in the name of unio mystica.

  9. #89
    queentiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 3w4
    Posts
    509
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?
    That's not how that works - the burden of proof would be on the person who claimed God exists. You use evidence to prove not disprove.
    "You're king and you're queen
    You're strong and you're weak
    You're bound but so free
    So come and join me
    And call me Harley
    And we'll make a scene"

    LIE-Ni
    3w4-7w8-8w7 sx/so


  10. #90

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by queentiger View Post
    That's not how that works - the burden of proof would be on the person who claimed God exists. You use evidence to prove not disprove.
    If you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist yes. But if you start from the other option it doesn't. The way I see it, it's like saying that the sky doesn't exist. Some people will say "hey, I see clearly that it exist", while a blind person could say that since they do not see it, it must be that it doesn't exist. That I believe is the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I've found that pure atheists often have some beef with the +Ni/-Ne element(for some reason, either because it is not valued or in a bad position such as PoLR, ignoring or linked demonstrative, and/or because they experienced some sort of trauma that made them not consider the existance of god a possibility).

  11. #91
    queentiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 3w4
    Posts
    509
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    If you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist yes. But if you start from the other option it doesn't. The way I see it, it's like saying that the sky doesn't exist. Some people will say "hey, I see clearly that it exist", while a blind person could say that since they do not see it, it must be that it doesn't exist. That I believe is the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I've found that pure atheists often have some beef with the +Ni/-Ne element(for some reason, either because it is not valued or in a bad position such as PoLR, ignoring or linked demonstrative, and/or because they experienced some sort of trauma that made them not consider the existance of god a possibility).
    You always start from the assumption that he doesn't exist, similar to innocent until proven guilty.
    "You're king and you're queen
    You're strong and you're weak
    You're bound but so free
    So come and join me
    And call me Harley
    And we'll make a scene"

    LIE-Ni
    3w4-7w8-8w7 sx/so


  12. #92

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by queentiger View Post
    You always start from the assumption that he doesn't exist, similar to innocent until proven guilty.
    I already explained. I don't really want to continue this discussion or even interact any more on the forum for now. The forum seems to be experiencing a very low point both in activity and quality of discussion. And it's not due to the drama; there has been worse drama in the past, but things got done and things were explored and discovered. Interaction now mostly consists of unwarranted attacks (often on members that do not deserve them), sycophancy, sophistry, and useless things in general. This issue IMO would require some some drastic measures in order to be resolved.

    Think I'm going back to lurking. Bye.

  13. #93
    queentiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 3w4
    Posts
    509
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    I already explained. I don't really want to continue this discussion or even interact any more on the forum for now. The forum seems to be experiencing a very low point both in activity and quality of discussion. And it's not due to the drama; there has been worse drama in the past, but things got done and things were explored and discovered. Interaction now mostly consists of unwarranted attacks (often on members that do not deserve them), sycophancy, sophistry, and useless things in general. This issue IMO would require some some drastic measures in order to be resolved.

    Think I'm going back to lurking. Bye.
    The ultimate rage quit
    "You're king and you're queen
    You're strong and you're weak
    You're bound but so free
    So come and join me
    And call me Harley
    And we'll make a scene"

    LIE-Ni
    3w4-7w8-8w7 sx/so


  14. #94
    stare into me flames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    As seen on T.V.
    TIM
    E I E I OOOOO Sx/So
    Posts
    1,664
    Mentioned
    230 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can’t logically rationalize Satan, the master of temptation and disguise, and you can’t scientifically prove “God”. Therefore, I believe they’re both evil and working together. Burn your local church today!
    And I'm what you desire, like a siren in the night



    Quote Originally Posted by Starfall
    Everyone, pls give Bled some likes. He craves the likes much like Suedehead craves the cock.
    7w6 2w3 8w9 - The Free Spirit

  15. #95
    Investigator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is very interesting how much we have fallen in love rationalizing everything without knowing if our activities will produce results in all areas of reality. Maybe there is God complex in ourselves that we have to actively suppress. Always found it wierd when people start discussing God’s existence as if it is “concretely” provable. I find it wierder when people say God’s non existence is “concretely” provable due to how flawed of a bet that is.

    I gave you a test and you failed miserably. If you truly read Godel, you would have known of his incompleteness theorem, which states that there unprovable truths in mathematical logic. Sticking with a concrete conclusion on the topic of God’s existence, it should be known that you have completed a leap of faith, not of reason.

    What will the they do when curtain falls on their irrational conclusions? “God, you did not give me enough hints”, “How can sentence me for being bad when I can’t trust concept of morality”, “God, made me too flawed to deduce your existence.” God says “I have given you all that is required and more.” Then they are sentenced.

    Some might say even if this were to happen, they would be happy that they lead life of good philisophical thought and investigation. This mimics the words of failed gamblers who believe they know the trick to the system until they realize the system will not yield to their inferior abilities.

    For your sakes, consider if range of possibilities if you’re wrong. You can’t argue with the “I am.” See where your best bets lie and try to take the correct leap of faith.

    This is my final statement on this thread. Thanks for listening even if it appears as foolishness.
    Last edited by Investigator; 09-18-2019 at 11:54 AM.

  16. #96
    End's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    TIM
    ILI-Ni sp/sx
    Posts
    790
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fresh meat View Post
    You can’t logically rationalize Satan, the master of temptation and disguise, and you can’t scientifically prove “God”. Therefore, I believe they’re both evil and working together. Burn your local church today!
    Satan is eminently rationalizeable, just start trying to out hipster a real hipster. Pathetic yes, but so is Satan. Now, by the same token, try to out priest a priest. You'll sadly be able to do that with quite a few of them but once you finally come across a real one you'll get what I'm getting at.

    You could also shock me right here and now if you pass a witch test. I have already sung false praises to Satan so as to prove my good faith to the fallen, can you sing false praises to Christ in turn while being as blatantly insincere as I was in my recorded blasphemy? Can ye even in jest say the words? I bet not. Prove me wrong.

  17. #97
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,358
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Any attempt to rationalize either the nature or the existence of God immediately contradicts an important foundation of religious belief: conjuring up evidence for God's existence makes the notion of "faith" entirely morally vacuous and pointless.

    Religion is more likely poetry than science, at any rate. If there were evidence for this supreme consciousness called "God", such that it was something reified, that you could grasp either physically or mentally, then that creature wouldn't be divine.
    Last edited by xerxe; 09-18-2019 at 07:42 AM.

  18. #98
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,111
    Mentioned
    187 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fresh meat View Post
    You can’t logically rationalize Satan, the master of temptation and disguise, and you can’t scientifically prove “God”. Therefore, I believe they’re both evil and working together. Burn your local church today!
    You've seen through the demiurge.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  19. #99
    Bill Nye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In my lab finding an antidote to your ignorance
    TIM
    LSI
    Posts
    709
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it's not about "rationalizing god" or making sense of what god is by analyzing test tubes in a lab.

    it's about "rationalizing if existence of god is possible/reasonable", and if there is purpose to why we're all here.

    and to take it a step further. it's more about being open to the possibility vs trying to rationalize it.

    we're not that smart lol
    Last edited by Bill Nye; 09-18-2019 at 02:34 PM.
    Even gravity won't hold back your tears from science.

  20. #100
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,480
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you believe that "God" is an observable feature of the universe, perhaps even considering "God" to be equivalent to the universe..."the whole", then I think belief in such a god is logically rational. But I would consider that unsatisfactory, as it is just playing with words (attributing to "God" what is already known by another name).

    If you believe that "God" is eternal and has no creator - why is this not a possibility with the universe (or multiverse if you prefer, although that ultimately amounts to the same thing)? In either case, something being eternal is not something that be definitively proved.

    It is nonsensical to say that the universe could have turned out differently with the same laws of nature. If the universe had turned out differently, than the laws of nature would have been different. It is also nonsensical to say that the universe has been created a particular way as opposed to being "random". Any isolated system can be defined absolutely, but it is not possible for an observer inside the system to do so. If the universe is an open system, then how could you determine if it is possible to create Something from Nothing?

  21. #101
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,480
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    Not really. There's this thing people forget about "God" (at least if we're talking about the Deity of Christianity). God *is* love. He loves you, me, that gray alien on Epsilon Segmentum Obscurus, etc. The key thing everyone just keeps overlooking is that he is also Justice.

    Take the true and eternal love out of that equation. Imagine an entity, a deity, of only pure justice, of pure and omnipotent "law" sans any form of "morality" or "compassion" as we would understand it made manifest. Now imagine asking that thing what you deserve (or rather, not being given a choice in regards to having to ask that question of it). If you're not absolutely terrified at the prospect of that reality than you're either a narcissist, a saint, or a total idiot with a complete lack of imagination to boot and as saints are quite rare that kinda narrows it down.

    Thankfully, for Christians like me, God is both so we have nothing to truly fear. Further argument on this front will, I regret in jest, require you to pass the Witch test. Key thing to remember about that is that you need not mean a word you type. Hell, you can even ask me to type words I won't mean for shit (i.e. ask me to say/type out the creed of another religion). Save, of course, for anything that hails the prince of this world and/or rejects God. After all, many a martyr were asked to do just that and they gave the correct answer. I will follow in their example.
    If "God" is absolutely just, then no one has anything to fear.

  22. #102
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,480
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Nye View Post
    Of which, leads me to my final point:

    An argument for God from a consciousness/intelligence perspective

    1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.

    2. Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.

    3. Lets assume it didn't happen by blind chance.

    4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

    And *the* intelligence greater than us?

    GOD.
    Does Carbon and Oxygen Know how to form Carbon Monoxide, or is this a process that some attribute as intelligent? Does DNA Know how to self-replicate? Do plants Know that they should grow towards the light? Do toads Know that they should try to catch horizontal lines that move rather than vertical ones?

  23. #103
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,480
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    from V. Mancuso, catholic theologian and philosopher
    The probability of the universe turning out the way it did is 100%. How could it be otherwise?

  24. #104
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,480
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
    I am Christian which makes me Theistic, but I am not religious in the worldly sense. I believe God's existence is logically provable and I also believe the rules that he wants us to follow are also a priori, along with the fundamental reasons for these rules.

    I think I sketch of God's existence would look something like Descartes Ontological Argument:

    1. Our idea of God is an all perfect being. In other words, a being that has perfection in "all areas."
    2. Existence is a perfection.
    3. Therefore God must exist.

    Common Criticisms of this sketch
    1. Can't I assign the property of perfection to other things like unicorns and "deduce them into existence."
    Rebuttal: Well we can't picture a perfect being with our mind, we can only make generalizations. For a spaghetti monster, we can picture what a spaghetti monster would look like making it already flawed. Now, let's not get this confused with Jesus who I believe came as God within a human body. The human body in of itself wasn't God, but the being using it was. Why can't God use a spaghetti monster or a unicorn? I mean I guess hypothetically God could do that, but those things (the spaghetti monster, unicorn, etc.) in of themselves wouldn't be God.
    2. Isn't the idea of perfection kinda vague? Well not really. Descartes definition for perfection in of itself is a positive trait. For example, you wouldn't say weakness is a perfection, as weakness is merely the absence of power. A healthy food for thought would be to consider if we did consider weakness to be a perfection and figure out why this doesn't make sense.

    For a more rigorous proof, I invite you to check out Godel's Ontological Argument if you know modal logic.

    As for being Christian, I think this is at least a posteriori knowledge. There are many historical documents of Jesus's existence and his persecution. Along with his injuries, and sitings of him after he sustained these injuries (which would not be humanly possible based on the reported injuries).
    The problem with such arguments is that they confuse an Idea with a Thing that exists in reality. Also, "Existence is a perfection" is an aesthetic view (a matter of personal taste), not a necessary attribute of a thing that exists.

  25. #105
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,480
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    If you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist yes. But if you start from the other option it doesn't. The way I see it, it's like saying that the sky doesn't exist. Some people will say "hey, I see clearly that it exist", while a blind person could say that since they do not see it, it must be that it doesn't exist. That I believe is the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I've found that pure atheists often have some beef with the +Ni/-Ne element(for some reason, either because it is not valued or in a bad position such as PoLR, ignoring or linked demonstrative, and/or because they experienced some sort of trauma that made them not consider the existance of god a possibility).
    Atheism just means that an individual lacks a belief in the existence of gods - as they were at the time of their birth. Whether a person explicitly states a lack of belief in the existence of god is another matter.

    Agnosticism however actually does require an individual to make an explicit judgement.


  26. #106
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,480
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Investigator View Post
    It is very interesting how much we have fallen in love rationalizing everything without knowing if our activities will produce results in all areas of reality. Maybe there is God complex in ourselves that we have to actively suppress. Always found it wierd when people start discussing God’s existence as if it is “concretely” provable. I find it wierder when people say God’s non existence is “concretely” provable due to how flawed of a bet that is.

    I gave you a test and you failed miserably. If you truly read Godel, you would have known of his incompleteness theorem, which states that there unprovable truths in mathematical logic. Sticking with a concrete conclusion on the topic of God’s existence, it should be known that you have completed a leap of faith, not of reason.

    What will the they do when curtain falls on their irrational conclusions? “God, you did not give me enough hints”, “How can sentence me for being bad when I can’t trust concept of morality”, “God, made me too flawed to deduce your existence.” God says “I have given you all that is required and more.” Then they are sentenced.

    Some might say even if this were to happen, they would be happy that they lead life of good philisophical thought and investigation. This mimics the words of failed gamblers who believe they know the trick to the system until they realize the system will not yield to their inferior abilities.

    For your sakes, consider if range of possibilities if you’re wrong. You can’t argue with the “I am.” See where your best bets lie and try to take the correct leap of faith.

    This is my final statement on this thread. Thanks for listening even if it appears as foolishness.

  27. #107
    inaLim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w9 sx/sp
    Posts
    40
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the rationalization of God says more about a person than a person's rationalizations say about God. It seems people characterize, relate to, and justify the existence of god to serve their own projections of however they need god to be/act/judge.

    Need for relationship - relief from the anxiety of alienation. An orientation towards the ultimate, "as if" a form of interpersonal, embodied, or ecological relationship. Partner, womb, provider.
    Need for order - relief from the anxiety of chaos and the prospect of the impossibility of sense-making. Staking the claim that it's all intelligible.
    Need for value - relief from the anxiety that one's worldview is constructed around incidental or meaningless patterns. Staking the claim that existence is well-made and hence its manifestations are worthy of investigation and value.
    Need for direction - relief from the anxiety of being accountable with no guidance. "Leaving it in God's hands" "It's all according to God's plan"
    Need for expected returns - relief from the anxiety that the fruits of our conduct in this life are ultimately arbitrary. Good/Merit/Effort/Kindness will go unrewarded. Evil/Mediocrity/Apathy/Indifference will go unpunished. No one is watching, listening, or keeping track. The responsive god/universe.
    Need for meaning & motivation - relief from the anxiety that nothing is significant. That nothing lasts or makes a difference. Nothing is ultimately worthwhile or fulfilling. Ecclesiastes.
    Need for the new unknown - relief from the anxiety that one is treading already discovered territory and possibilities exhausted by materialism. Stagnation in dead ends.


    Edit: I forgot to include urges to identify with hierarchy, to serve, to worship/devotion, to annihilate ego consciousness and merge with "The All", to understand/reach enlightenment. etc etc. All these different orientations and urges generate different perspectives of the nature of God and different rationalizations for whether or not to believe.
    Last edited by inaLim; 10-28-2019 at 02:16 PM.

  28. #108

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Atheism just means that an individual lacks a belief in the existence of gods - as they were at the time of their birth. Whether a person explicitly states a lack of belief in the existence of god is another matter.

    Agnosticism however actually does require an individual to make an explicit judgement.

    The image you posted is very good, but your writing is a bit nonsensical.

  29. #109
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,182
    Mentioned
    931 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by End View Post
    Satan is eminently rationalizeable, just start trying to out hipster a real hipster. Pathetic yes, but so is Satan. Now, by the same token, try to out priest a priest. You'll sadly be able to do that with quite a few of them but once you finally come across a real one you'll get what I'm getting at.

    You could also shock me right here and now if you pass a witch test. I have already sung false praises to Satan so as to prove my good faith to the fallen, can you sing false praises to Christ in turn while being as blatantly insincere as I was in my recorded blasphemy? Can ye even in jest say the words? I bet not. Prove me wrong.
    “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
    An evil soul producing holy witness
    Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
    A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
    O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

    ― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

    Asking people to pass a "witch test" sounds like you learned it from an anime or some fantasy novel and not actual information based on history and the witch trials. You do realize that even a "possessed" person or satan himself would pass your "witch test" easily. I feel like you make a mockery of it all doing this. I may not consider myself a Christian anymore for my own reasons but I find this pretty offensive when you asked people to do this. Witch burnings were no joke. So many innocents killed in the name of religion. Many of them probably just for using herbs to help heal or something else very benign. Others because someone wanted their property and saw it as an easy way to get and then we have the ergot poisoning, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.

    I also find it strange that you would blaspheme as a true believer. When I was one I would have never praised satan even as a joke and definitely not in arrogance in an attempt to get someone to praise god then to blaspheme him after. Something does not make sense about all this.


    2. Prayer Test
    Medieval wisdom held that witches were incapable of speaking scripture aloud, so accused sorcerers were made to recite selections from the Bible—usually the Lord’s Prayer—without making mistakes or omissions. While it may have simply been a sign that the suspected witch was illiterate or nervous, any errors were viewed as proof that the speaker was in league with the devil. This twisted test of public speaking ability was commonly used as hard evidence in witch trials. In 1712, it was applied in the case Jane Wenham, an accused witch who supposedly struggled to speak the words “forgive us our trespasses” and “lead us not into temptation” during her interrogation. Still, even a successful prayer test didn’t guarantee an acquittal. During the Salem Witch Trials, the accused sorcerer George Burroughs flawlessly recited the prayer from the gallows just before his execution. The performance was dismissed as a devil’s trick, and the hanging proceeded as planned.

    https://www.history.com/news/7-bizar...ch-trial-tests

    Is this what Catholicism is like now? Has it reverted to superstition and witch tests? None of the Catholics I know would ask such a thing of anyone. They also wouldn't praise satan to make a point.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  30. #110
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,480
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    The image you posted is very good, but your writing is a bit nonsensical.
    Atheism does not require a belief, essentially.

  31. #111
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,530
    Mentioned
    236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    The probability of the universe turning out the way it did is 100%. How could it be otherwise?
    probability is not counted that way though, if you win at a slot machine your chances to win were not 100%, but still lower than... what? a 5%?

    but here the probabilities are presumably even lower : )

  32. #112
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,480
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    probability is not counted that way though, if you win at a slot machine your chances to win were not 100%, but still lower than... what? a 5%?

    but here the probabilities are presumably even lower : )
    My point is that you cannot count the probability of something that is the whole. There is nothing to compare it to.

  33. #113
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    3,530
    Mentioned
    236 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    My point is that you cannot count the probability of something that is the whole. There is nothing to compare it to.
    the chances of the formation of single molecules of proteins were hypothesized, or other singular phenomena, not the whole... btw Idk, they're pretty big scientists claiming this, I pass the mic to them~

  34. #114
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,480
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    the chances of the formation of single molecules of proteins were hypothesized, or other singular phenomena, not the whole... btw Idk, they're pretty big scientists claiming this, I pass the mic to them~
    It is understandable for example for scientists to get their jollies estimating the probability of such an occurrence happening in a particular solar system, but it would be inappropriate to do so at the level of the universe.

  35. #115

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    778
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Atheism does not require a belief, essentially.
    Based on the image you posted, only "implicit atheism" (which is the dumbest position of them all as per the image) would meet that requirement.

  36. #116
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,480
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    Based on the image you posted, only "implicit atheism" (which is the dumbest position of them all as per the image) would meet that requirement.
    I'm not sure what your point is. Your position was that atheism required a judgement call - this is not the case.

  37. #117
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,007
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I'm not sure what your point is. Your position was that atheism required a judgement call - this is not the case.
    What your chart calls implicit atheism is normally just termed agnosticism. Dictionary definition: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God"

    It's most common to work with just the 3 categories when discussing, or it gets rather convoluted and people end up referring to entirely different things in their discussions. These categories would be: belief (theist), disbelief (atheist), and no opinion (agnostic.)





    Edit:
    Whatever terms you want to use, or however you want to define it doesn't matter. Just everyone needs to know where each person is coming from. If what you're calling atheism is different from what someone else is calling it, then unless you know what definitions the other is using there's no way to have a discussion.
    Last edited by squark; 10-26-2019 at 02:22 AM.

  38. #118
    The Original EII Is Not Necessarily The Best Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,480
    Mentioned
    315 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    What your chart calls implicit atheism is normally just termed agnosticism. Dictionary definition: "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God"

    It's most common to work with just the 3 categories when discussing, or it gets rather convoluted and people end up referring to entirely different things in their discussions. These categories would be: belief (theist), disbelief (atheist), and no opinion (agnostic.)
    Agnosticism is a position about belief regarding god/s - it does not equal "no opinion", but an explicit "no opinion" position would be agnostic ("I choose to neither believe or disbelieve in the existence of god/s").

    Wiktionary:
    Noun

    agnosticism (countable and uncountable, plural agnosticisms)

    1. The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable, especially regarding knowledge not based on experience or perceivable phenomena.
    2. The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable.
    3. Doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding the existence of a god or gods.
    4. (by extension) Doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding any subject of dispute.
    A person at birth lacks a belief or view about "God", so cannot be considered to be agnostic.

  39. #119
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    3,007
    Mentioned
    249 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Like I said in my edit (was probably writing it while you were gathering quotes) it doesn't really matter what terms you want to use. All that matters in having a discussion is that everyone is aware that different terms are being referred to and they all understand how each person is defining it. If I say "agnostic" and you say "atheist" and we're both actually referring to the same idea it doesn't actually matter as long as it's known that it's the same idea. On the other hand, if it's not understood then there's a whole lot of wasted breath for no reason.

  40. #120

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •