Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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

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

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

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

forgiven
Inactive Member


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


quote:
Originally posted by Chavalon:
Oh come on, Forgiven. An axiom is a basic assumption.
i knew what the word meant, i was looking for an example based on my quote, that's all...
quote:
You seem to believe that I hold these beliefs through self deception, love of sin and fear of divine perfection. In the end it's all ipse dixit on both sides, as one would expect of this subject matter.
Go well.
'El chavaln'
actually i was just trying to understand a little about the buddhist worldview, nothing more... while my religion teaches, and i believe, what you said regarding self-deception et al, i was simply trying to find out how buddhists accounted for those metaphysical ideas... nothing more... take care

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

forgiven
Inactive Member


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


quote:
Originally posted by John:
If you read forgiven carefully you'll notice how extraordinarily Platonic he is. He treats ideas and concepts as if they were independently existing things. This is the base for his statements that atheists cannot account for metaphysical entities. The catch is that forgiven simply assumes that such entities exist, so the argument is toothless.
hi john, hope you're feeling better... i don't think atheists can account for metaphysical entities, and you're quite right that i "simply assume" they exist... if i recall, nobody ever quite came out and said the law of non-contradiction didn't exist before man, nobody ever came out and said the primordial soup from which life emerged was and was not that soup at the same time in the same way... man might categorize things, man might call a quasar a quasar, but naming something isn't the same as creating it...
either quasars predated man or they didn't... either the laws of logic predated man or they didn't... and if they did, i maintain i can account for them from within my worldview and the atheist (materialist) can't

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

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

forgiven
Inactive Member


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


hi delshad
quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Sorry for bumping in Forgiven, but I have a question....what signifies a materialist?
~~~snip~~~
What defines a materialist in the sense you are using the word and can a religious person be a materialist too?

i'm using the word to mean one who denies the existence of anything not suspended in time and space... anything metaphysical or transcendental, for example... a materialist, in this sense, would by definition believe that everything that happens is determined... even physicists admit this, especially based on the "old" physics... with quantum physics (and its reliance on randomness) some have tried to show that such things as free will exist, but i don't think a quantum view of the universe solves that problem
added by edit: joz and i are talking about this in the 'free will' thread in 'faith and belief'
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-30-2002]

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

forgiven
Inactive Member


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


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
f:
i don't think atheists can account for metaphysical entities, and you're quite right that i "simply assume" they exist...
ummm..... if you simply assume, there is no reason anyone has to account for them. It is something you made up. Big deal.
quote:
f:
if i recall, nobody ever quite came out and said the law of non-contradiction didn't exist before man
Calling something 'the law of non-contradiction' doesn't make it a thing either. This the the error you make repeatedly -- assuming that concepts that have names are actually things. See your own statement below:
quote:
f:
but naming something isn't the same as creating it...
Yes, indeed. Nor is naming something proof that it is a metaphysical thing, yet this is precisely what you insist.
quote:
f:
either quasars predated man or they didn't... either the laws of logic predated man or they didn't...
This is meaningless. Either object A is or it isn't. Very profound.
The implicit comparison of energy jets associated with super-massive black holes and an artificial analytical system is laughable.
quote:
f:
and if they did, i maintain i can account for them from within my worldview and the atheist (materialist) can't
You assume that meta-entities exist, ie. you make them up, and then gloat that you can account for them by making up more stuff? How can you take yourself seriously?
maybe i see the problem here... do you deny the laws of logic exist? one would think so from this post, one would think that you deny the law of non-contradiction's existence, accusing me of "assuming that concepts that have names are actually things"... this is beneath you, john, it appears to be another attempt at a "dictionary war" on your part... "define thing" etc...
if you don't deny laws of logic, are they suspended in time and space? in another post you said of course logic exists, but man "created" it, that it didn't exist before man labeled it... do you still maintain this indefensible view?
john, how can you take yourself seriously? do you really think i made up the laws of logic? and then that i gloat over this? you tell me, john... do they exist or not? if they do exist, did they predate man or not? it's easy to dismiss a position by saying "this is meaningless" but it's not quite so easy showing why... try a little less rancor and a little more rational argumentation...
don't come at this as if logic doesn't exist, john, or as if someone made it up... tell us all
a) do laws of logic exist?
b) if so, are they suspended in time and space?
c) if so, do they predate man (as quasars do)?

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

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

forgiven
Inactive Member


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


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
maybe i see the problem here... do you deny the laws of logic exist?
The laws of logic are concepts-- descriptions-- not THINGS. They are derived from our experiences of the world. The underlying physics may be stable, and that isn't looking too good, but the physics isn't the DESCRIPTIONS we have made up to describe them.
ok john... you seem to be saying that nothing exists that isn't material... before i answer the rest of your post, is that an accurate representation of your views?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by John, posted 01-01-2003 6:30 PM forgiven 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