Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9180 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God says this, and God says that
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 383 of 417 (28016)
12-28-2002 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by forgiven
12-27-2002 9:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by Gzus:
The problem is, that it’s a paradox. By claiming, ‘nothing is certain’, you are also saying that the statement ‘nothing is certain’ is uncertain, and yet how can you come to any other conclusion?
you keep missing the point... it isn't enough for you to make the statement, *argue* it... make your case, but do so without relying on tools your worldview does't give you... at least stand up and admit it your worldview is irrational, but don't use reason to argue!! don't use logic!!... those don't exist, can't exist, in your world... at least admit you're nothing but atoms reacting to other atoms and nothing more
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-27-2002]

How are you justified in saying that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by forgiven, posted 12-27-2002 9:17 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 11:01 AM Gzus has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 384 of 417 (28017)
12-28-2002 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Mr. Davies
12-28-2002 12:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
As for evidence that your God exists? Oh, a simple "Hi, watch me pull another Universe out of a black hole" would suffice. Yes, that was in jest but why I don't believe in any god is I haven't seen the need for one.
so you demand empirical evidence for a transcendental entity?... are your demands re this particular entity (the christian God) consistent with your demands for all such entities? must all transcendental entities be empirically verified, or do you solve this problem by denying their existence?...
your position appears arbitrary, thus irrational on its face... i don't expect that to bother you much, but most people would rather embrace a worldview that is at least consistent in its dogmas
quote:
As for Presumptions, yours is that your God exists and there is nothing that could disuade you from thinking otherwise, at least for now. One question, are you a biblical literalist? You know, 6 day creation, Noah's flood, that type of stuff.
we all have presuppositions, but you misstate my position... i have a view of the world that is internally consistent, i can give an account for things that exist yet are not suspended in time and space.. you can't, not without borrowing from my worldview... so while i believe the bible is the inspired word of God i don't see how you can argue against it without using the very tools you deny, the very tools that can be accounted for from only within my worldview

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-28-2002 12:58 AM Mr. Davies has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-28-2002 11:15 AM forgiven has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 385 of 417 (28019)
12-28-2002 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Gzus
12-28-2002 10:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Gzus:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by Gzus:
The problem is, that it’s a paradox. By claiming, ‘nothing is certain’, you are also saying that the statement ‘nothing is certain’ is uncertain, and yet how can you come to any other conclusion?
you keep missing the point... it isn't enough for you to make the statement, *argue* it... make your case, but do so without relying on tools your worldview does't give you... at least stand up and admit it your worldview is irrational, but don't use reason to argue!! don't use logic!!... those don't exist, can't exist, in your world... at least admit you're nothing but atoms reacting to other atoms and nothing more
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-27-2002]

How are you justified in saying that?

i can understand why you can't grasp it, your worldview doesn't allow for such things as reason... but that does not mean i'm unjustified in what i say, my worldview gives me the right
i never said "nothing is certain," you did... you arbitrarily define terms and you assert without argumentation... rational discourse is impossible with you since even the elementary principles of debate seem unknown to you... unless or until you can grasp these things and formulate arguments that account for your worldview, maybe you should just read for awhile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Gzus, posted 12-28-2002 10:47 AM Gzus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Gzus, posted 12-28-2002 2:27 PM forgiven has not replied

Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 386 of 417 (28021)
12-28-2002 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by forgiven
12-28-2002 10:49 AM


quote:
so you demand empirical evidence for a transcendental entity?... are your demands re this particular entity (the christian God) consistent with your demands for all such entities? must all transcendental entities be empirically verified, or do you solve this problem by denying their existence?...
I would demand that from any god or gods as evidence they exist! However to believe that anyone of them exists is faith and an entirely different matter.
quote:
your position appears arbitrary, thus irrational on its face...
I guess it would to you, but I can't seem to let that bother me much. I have a consistant worldview and it does not require the supernatural. Can I explain everything? No. Does it really matter where my thoughts common from or what I take to be my ability to choose for myslef? No.
quote:
i don't expect that to bother you much, but most people would rather embrace a worldview that is at least consistent in its dogmas
I am consistent. Just because you have a hard time accepting them does not bother me.
quote:
we all have presuppositions, but you misstate my position... i have a view of the world that is internally consistent, i can give an account for things that exist yet are not suspended in time and space..
Calling upon some supernatural force to solve where things comes from is just delaying the question. The next question then becomes "Where did that supernatural entity come from?" I just cut out the middle man. You say I don't know where things ultimately come from but neither do you. If you say "God has always been here", fine. I can equally state with as much conviction that the Universe has always been here, in one form or another. The difference is mine need not envoke a boogy man to explain things when the boogey man itslef can't be explained.
quote:
you can't, not without borrowing from my worldview...
What conceit! My worldview is not borrowed form you, we both borrowed parts of it from the culture we were brought up in. The egotism to say that to use your worldview I need to believe the way you do is truly repugnant. Our culture's worldview came from other cultures before it, and theirs from other cultures before them. To say that it is based upon your worldview is just you reaching as your arguement is weak.
quote:
so while i believe the bible is the inspired word of God i don't see how you can argue against it without using the very tools you deny, the very tools that can be accounted for from only within my worldview
That's rich. See I don't deny the tools. They were created by men, not a god. There is no problem there. You on the other hand have a huge problem. You assert that the tools we use come from your God and the Bible. Well, human civilization has been around a lot longer than your bible and your religion. You worldview has come from the mixing and matching of ancient pagan religions and Judaism into Christianity. Despite your feelings to the contrary our shared, but slightly differnt worldview is not centered around or a product of your God.
------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 10:49 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 11:43 AM Mr. Davies has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 387 of 417 (28023)
12-28-2002 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by Mr. Davies
12-28-2002 11:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
quote:
so you demand empirical evidence for a transcendental entity?... are your demands re this particular entity (the christian God) consistent with your demands for all such entities? must all transcendental entities be empirically verified, or do you solve this problem by denying their existence?...
I would demand that from any god or gods as evidence they exist! However to believe that anyone of them exists is faith and an entirely different matter.
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:
quote:
your position appears arbitrary, thus irrational on its face...
I guess it would to you, but I can't seem to let that bother me much. I have a consistant worldview and it does not require the supernatural. Can I explain everything? No. Does it really matter where my thoughts common from or what I take to be my ability to choose for myslef? No.
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:
quote:
we all have presuppositions, but you misstate my position... i have a view of the world that is internally consistent, i can give an account for things that exist yet are not suspended in time and space..
Calling upon some supernatural force to solve where things comes from is just delaying the question. The next question then becomes "Where did that supernatural entity come from?" I just cut out the middle man. You say I don't know where things ultimately come from but neither do you. If you say "God has always been here", fine. I can equally state with as much conviction that the Universe has always been here, in one form or another. The difference is mine need not envoke a boogy man to explain things when the boogey man itslef can't be explained.
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:
quote:
you can't, not without borrowing from my worldview...
What conceit! My worldview is not borrowed form you, we both borrowed parts of it from the culture we were brought up in. The egotism to say that to use your worldview I need to believe the way you do is truly repugnant. Our culture's worldview came from other cultures before it, and theirs from other cultures before them. To say that it is based upon your worldview is just you reaching as your arguement is weak.
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:
quote:
so while i believe the bible is the inspired word of God i don't see how you can argue against it without using the very tools you deny, the very tools that can be accounted for from only within my worldview
That's rich. See I don't deny the tools. They were created by men, not a god. There is no problem there.
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:
You on the other hand have a huge problem. You assert that the tools we use come from your God and the Bible. Well, human civilization has been around a lot longer than your bible and your religion. You worldview has come from the mixing and matching of ancient pagan religions and Judaism into Christianity. Despite your feelings to the contrary our shared, but slightly differnt worldview is not centered around or a product of your God.
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-28-2002 11:15 AM Mr. Davies has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-28-2002 1:30 PM forgiven has replied

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 388 of 417 (28026)
12-28-2002 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by forgiven
12-25-2002 8:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
hello chavalon
Originally posted by Chavalon:
The mutually exclusive truth claims made by strong adherents of all the religions mentioned do seem to throw severe doubt on the universal validity of any of them.
i frankly don't see how two or more mutually exclusive truth claims can lead to the conclusion that doubt, severe or otherwise, need be thrown on any one of them... person P thinks the earth is spherical in shape, person Q says flat, person R says triangular...

-But it is possible to verify publically that the world is, in fact, approximately spherical. No such verification is possible for metaphysical assertions, or there would be as much consensus about religious entities as there is about physical ones.
quote:
Most pragmatic empiricists do not see profit in ideas of the transcendent, especially in sorting through claim and counter-claim, and may be called atheists, as much for a lack of interest as a lack of capacity for the subject.
Suppose a buddhist were to claim that the concept of God is a benign and useful way of conceptualising the thoughts and feelings which arise if one sees merit in entertaining such ideas.
Buddhists can and do describe themselves as pragmatic, empirical, religious and atheistic.
i agree that empiricists believe as you say, i just think they must borrow from my worldview in order to hold to their beliefs
how do buddhists reconcile the seemingly mutually exclusive definitions you attach to their beliefs? for example, would a religious empiricist deny or affirm the supernatural? would a pragmatic atheist, during her religious ceremonies, affirm or deny a deity?

-The buddha insisted that to say even a single word on the subject of metaphysics is to fall into error - that the subject is, in the true sense of the word, ineffable.
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 Understanding
2. 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.
Edited for a more enlightening quote structure!
[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 12-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 8:21 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 1:44 PM Chavalon has replied

Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 389 of 417 (28028)
12-28-2002 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by forgiven
12-28-2002 11:43 AM


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,
Of course not. Then your whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
quote:
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
Intersting. If I use and accept logic then I argue against myself. LOL! You proceed from a simplistic POV. Either I accept your God and therefore be able to use your God's tools or I can't use the tools as you know your God provided them.
Earth to forgiven: Just because you think that your God is the source doesn't make it so. Even if logic and the other tools we use came from a god, it does not mean it came from your God. f these tools did in fact come from another god, a true God (though not yours), as I would say you would deny the existance of such a being then you're unable to use those tools as well. You would agree, correct?
quote:
then why are you here? anyone can say "i don't care that i have no answers, yours are wrong neener neener"...
Huh? I said "I don't know (yet) where things 'ultimately come from'", but I do not woryy about it. As humanity spreads our understanding, we will learn. The only one saying "neener neener" is you. I realise you can't handle an honest answer like "I don't know, but I think we'll know one day" as you're use to lies forom the ICR and AIG, but try to understand not everyone lies.
quote:
so your worldview is consistent eh? then tell me whether or not transcendental entities exist or if only the material is real
The material is real. As far as the transcendental goes, I don't know as I have seen nothing that indicates it does.
But then we get into the sticky subject that what we can see in the universe is only about 5% - or 10% of everything that is out there. For the rest of the stuff, "dark energy", "Flavoured" neutrinos, the so called "WIMPS" and even weirder objects, we have found evidence that they do exist. Just what are they, I don't know.
quote:
how can you continue to miss the most elementary things?
I guess I must have graduated.
quote:
whether or not my explanations appease you, at least i have them!!...
So do Muslims, Hindi, Buddhists, and your point is?
quote:
you have none, you admit as much...
No, you infere as much as it suits your purposes. I don't know what is all out there. I don't know what the supernatural is or even if it exists.
quote:
you simply say you are right and that's all there is to it,
quote:
no argument needed *sticking your fingers in your ears and making noises*... that's unacceptable
You're correct so I'll never steal your schtik.
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...
????? It's the YEC and literal crowd that seems to stick together no matter how inane some claim that was made by one of their own. Go check your mirror.
quote:
once more, it isn't enough to assert that your worldview is consistent while denying the existence of things necessary to make it so...
And to think you say you never assert anything.
quote:
"logic exists but God doesn't" you say...
I don't believe in any god or gods, but the more you post the more I am convinced that your version of a deity, the God of the Bible, doesn't exist. The rest I am unsure about. What's the problem there? If that makes me an atheist, it is only an atheist to your God, nothing more. As I allow for the possibility of other gods and you do not - not if you're a true believer in the Bible and the word of your God which states that no other exists - you're an atheist as well if you were to use your standards on yourself.
quote:
"why?" i ask... "just because and that's consistent and i don't have to explain anything so there" you say
Huh?
quote:
what was created by men? reason? logic? morality?...
All of the above and not only those, but visions of what they wanted their deity or deities to look and act like.
quote:
you are confused as to the terms 'descriptive' and 'proscriptive' i think... prove, empirically, that logic exists...
Sophistry. You can't show you God exists so challenge everything eose to cast doubt on everything. Nice try but I won't bite.
quote:
you demand such proof of others, hold yourself to your own standard
I hold the gods to that standard to show themselves. I could always get a plane ticket, fly out to where you live and know you exist. The gods have not as far as I can tell.
quote:
i've puposely abstained from naming individual fallacies in your posts because it would be too tiring...
The fallacies are in your head. If you see a fallacy, I would dare say it is because you can't accept it, not due to any problem on my part. Again you fall back to a position of "Forgiven is right, you are wrong". It makes it much easier to call those that you disagree with and their statements "fallacies".
quote:
but try not to say what it is i assert unless i actually assert something...
Pure sophistry. Your ability to twist words to make yourself think you are actually scoring points is laughable. You may think that you have not asserted anything, but you are wrong.
Assertion-->You assert that I am unable to use tools as I deny the existance of the supernatural. I do not deny the existance of the supernatural, I have just never seen it.
Assertion-->You have a view that your God is the only one to exist when you have not shown that to be true. That you would also claim that your God is responsible for everything is an assetertion as well. So please don't say you haven't asserted anything. You have in buckets.
Assertion-->Your name "forgiven" is an assertion. You assert that you are somehow above all of us as you have already been forgiven no matter what you do.
Assertion-->The only god you'll entertain is the God of the Bible. So no other talk of any other god would be enough to satisfy you. You live in a false dichotomy of either/or. Either your God did it all or nothing really exists.
So, don't start with me and proclaim you don't assert anything. It's a hollow and empty claim.
quote:
i can explain what i believe, i can account for both material and metaphysical entities...
No you can't, you just think you can. That's your arguement's greatest weakness. You claim that the material came from your God and that your God has been here forever. Sums it up pretty weel, don't you think?
quote:
you can't... and what's worse, you admit you can't and say you don't have to...
Read again cheif. What I said
arbitrariness is irrational...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 11:43 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 2:05 PM Mr. Davies has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 390 of 417 (28029)
12-28-2002 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Chavalon
12-28-2002 12:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chavalon:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
Originally posted by Chavalon:
The mutually exclusive truth claims made by strong adherents of all the religions mentioned do seem to throw severe doubt on the universal validity of any of them.
i frankly don't see how two or more mutually exclusive truth claims can lead to the conclusion that doubt, severe or otherwise, need be thrown on any one of them... person P thinks the earth is spherical in shape, person Q says flat, person R says triangular...
-But it is possible to verify publically that the world is, in fact, approximately spherical. No such verification is possible for metaphysical assertions, or there would be as much consensus about religious entities as there is about physical ones.
i don't agree that this lack of empirical verification is itself proof of a truth claim being false
quote:
quote:
how do buddhists reconcile the seemingly mutually exclusive definitions you attach to their beliefs? for example, would a religious empiricist deny or affirm the supernatural? would a pragmatic atheist, during her religious ceremonies, affirm or deny a deity?
-The buddha insisted that to say even a single word on the subject of metaphysics is to fall into error - that the subject is, in the true sense of the word, ineffable.
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 Understanding
2. 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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Chavalon, posted 12-28-2002 12:41 PM Chavalon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Chavalon, posted 12-28-2002 5:01 PM forgiven has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 391 of 417 (28031)
12-28-2002 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Mr. Davies
12-28-2002 1:30 PM


i think this small section shows exactly where you are missing the point...
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
quote:
forgiven:
what was created by men? reason? logic? morality?...
Mr. Davies:
All of the above and not only those, but visions of what they wanted their deity or deities to look and act like.
so man "created" laws of logic, did he?... i figured you thought that which is why i said the below
quote:
quote:
forgiven:
you are confused as to the terms 'descriptive' and 'prescriptive' i think... prove, empirically, that logic exists...
Mr. Davies:
Sophistry. You can't show you God exists so challenge everything eose to cast doubt on everything. Nice try but I won't bite.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-28-2002 1:30 PM Mr. Davies has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-29-2002 10:47 PM forgiven has not replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 392 of 417 (28033)
12-28-2002 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by forgiven
12-28-2002 11:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by Gzus:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by Gzus:
The problem is, that it’s a paradox. By claiming, ‘nothing is certain’, you are also saying that the statement ‘nothing is certain’ is uncertain, and yet how can you come to any other conclusion?
you keep missing the point... it isn't enough for you to make the statement, *argue* it... make your case, but do so without relying on tools your worldview does't give you... at least stand up and admit it your worldview is irrational, but don't use reason to argue!! don't use logic!!... those don't exist, can't exist, in your world... at least admit you're nothing but atoms reacting to other atoms and nothing more
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-27-2002]

How are you justified in saying that?

i can understand why you can't grasp it, your worldview doesn't allow for such things as reason... but that does not mean i'm unjustified in what i say, my worldview gives me the right
i never said "nothing is certain," you did... you arbitrarily define terms and you assert without argumentation... rational discourse is impossible with you since even the elementary principles of debate seem unknown to you... unless or until you can grasp these things and formulate arguments that account for your worldview, maybe you should just read for awhile

Fine, you win, but I have posted a new topic which uses what you have just said to refute religions that profess damnation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 11:01 AM forgiven has not replied

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 393 of 417 (28039)
12-28-2002 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by forgiven
12-28-2002 1:44 PM


quote:
i don't agree that this lack of empirical verification is itself proof of a truth claim being false
-Nor is it. It shows it to be undecidable.
quote:
-The buddha insisted that to say even a single word on the subject of metaphysics is to fall into error - that the subject is, in the true sense of the word, ineffable.
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
- Metaphysics exists, in our minds if nowhere else, but none of its propositions are decidable using logic. Buddha regarded its importance as trivial in comparison with the suffering actually experienced by sentient beings.
If the Christian God is other than metaphysical, can you cite the evidence? Can you explain why it is not as widely accepted as the sphericity of the planets?
quote:
...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...
I suggested in a previous post that the revelation experienced by Cristians may be a benign projection of their own buddha nature ('godlikeness'). Of course, this is a metaphysical speculation, so a buddhist wouldn't make it. I'm not one (that would also involve being a non-smoking vegetarian ) so I'll say it and apologise for making observations that may be thought rude.
The true reality, metaphysics and all, can - it is asserted - be directly experienced through fully realised meditation. It is however impossible to communicate the resulting insights linguistically. The standard similie is that talk of reality is to reality itself as a menu is to a meal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 1:44 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by forgiven, posted 12-29-2002 9:38 AM Chavalon has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 394 of 417 (28050)
12-29-2002 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Chavalon
12-28-2002 5:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chavalon:
- Metaphysics exists, in our minds if nowhere else, but none of its propositions are decidable using logic. Buddha regarded its importance as trivial in comparison with the suffering actually experienced by sentient beings.
If the Christian God is other than metaphysical, can you cite the evidence? Can you explain why it is not as widely accepted as the sphericity of the planets?
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:
I suggested in a previous post that the revelation experienced by Cristians may be a benign projection of their own buddha nature ('godlikeness'). Of course, this is a metaphysical speculation, so a buddhist wouldn't make it. I'm not one (that would also involve being a non-smoking vegetarian ) so I'll say it and apologise for making observations that may be thought rude.
The true reality, metaphysics and all, can - it is asserted - be directly experienced through fully realised meditation. It is however impossible to communicate the resulting insights linguistically. The standard similie is that talk of reality is to reality itself as a menu is to a meal.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Chavalon, posted 12-28-2002 5:01 PM Chavalon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Chavalon, posted 12-29-2002 3:39 PM forgiven has replied

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 395 of 417 (28068)
12-29-2002 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by forgiven
12-29-2002 9:38 AM


...giving up one's pride, abandoning one's centricity in the universe...
...is fundamental to fully realised meditation. In fact 'meditation with the aim of achieving enlightenment' is essentially the same thing as 'contemplative prayer with the aim of union with the Godhead' - as practiced by John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, Meister Eckhart and other less well known Christian mystics. It is possible to establish extremely close correspondences between the two, according to accounts of practitioners*. In fact, at least one Christian commentator has claimed that St John of the Cross was both entirely Christian and entirely buddhist...
The result is the same, the axioms different. You wrote
i think metaphysical entities can be proven using logic, but can't be proven in an empirical sense
which is obvious if you choose the right axioms. How do you feel about the fact that other axioms can lead to equivalent results with a much simpler metaphysic?
*Details in Aldous Huxley's 'The Perennial Philosophy'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by forgiven, posted 12-29-2002 9:38 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by forgiven, posted 12-29-2002 4:13 PM Chavalon has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 396 of 417 (28072)
12-29-2002 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by Chavalon
12-29-2002 3:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Chavalon:
The result is the same, the axioms different. You wrote
i think metaphysical entities can be proven using logic, but can't be proven in an empirical sense
which is obvious if you choose the right axioms. How do you feel about the fact that other axioms can lead to equivalent results with a much simpler metaphysic?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Chavalon, posted 12-29-2002 3:39 PM Chavalon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Chavalon, posted 12-29-2002 7:30 PM forgiven has replied

Chavalon
Inactive Member


Message 397 of 417 (28077)
12-29-2002 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by forgiven
12-29-2002 4:13 PM


Oh come on, Forgiven. An axiom is a basic assumption.
There is no proselytising tradition in buddhism. Those who are motivated to learn about it are encouraged to do so, but I'm not your best source of information.
I have been pointing out that many religions, such as buddhism and christianity, are substantially equivalent in many ways (the morality, the mystical core) apart from the undecidable metaphysical parts, which seem to have no publically verifiable proof.
The reader may possibly recall that this thread started as an investigation of personal divine revelation, something also common to all religions but 'objectively' unprovable. I suggest that although people think it comes from their God, the metaphysical framework of revelation is an accident of birth and culture, and that the experience of revelation is a consequence of the fact that people, unaided by the divine, are even more extraordinary than they realise.
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 chavaln'
[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 12-29-2002]
[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 12-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by forgiven, posted 12-29-2002 4:13 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by forgiven, posted 12-29-2002 9:14 PM Chavalon has not replied
 Message 400 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-29-2002 10:55 PM Chavalon has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024