Forums-->Off-game forum-->
<<|<|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|>|>>
| Author | May 21, 2011-End Of The World? |
|---|
Modi devotes a large portion of his personal info and clan pages in attempts to insult me and Fishy.
Fishy seems interested in discussing matters, you i'm not so sure... you just keep coming back at Modi over and over again. i was kidding when i said you love him... actually, i'm just jealous 'cause he gives you so much attention :D | That's all right, I'm quite happy to let you and Modi get back together and give each other as much attention as you want. I think it's funny that Modi is getting you to answer for him so that he can pretend he's not paying attention while still getting his two-cents in. Does it feel good to be a puppet?
Actually I read the Mind-Body Dichotomy stuff earlier when I was reading about Popper. Popper -> Dualism -> Mind Body Dichotomy.
The real problem with these concepts is that severe brain damage can render someone essentially without a personality. Progressive brain damage can also cause more and more degradation of the personality. So it is fairly obvious that there is a very physical basis for the personality being seated in the brain.
My favorite part of the Popper article was -
He also noted that theism presented as explaining adaptation "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached."
Popper was obviously a fan of Darwin and found the theory of Evolution to be fascinating. Unfortunately his major "contribution" to the scientific method was the concept of Falsification. Falsification was kind of the opposite of logical positivism.
Another favourite was the paradox of intolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance). It is knid of relevant to this discussion, no?
Grunge | | insults? game over. | @300. I don't need to try harder. I would love to believe in the kind of God that loves us all, eternal life, etc. It makes the thought of our ultimate demise easier. Just because something is nicer or easier doesn't make it true. I think given all the evidence available, the most reasonable answer is he does not exists.
Good try. of course I don't think my kindey is responsible for my spirit, any more than I think it's my heart. Its the whole unit working together.
You previously tried to use a very scientific line of reasoning about all cause and effect and regression to show that soul is a divine creation. I've used that same logic to show an all powerful god means we don't have free will. Instead of trying to refute these points with logic, you've gone to the age old staple religious people use when logic fails. "You can't understand the mind of God". Fine, go with that, but don't try to use logic to prove god, if you throw it away when it becomes inconvenient.
You say he created people as free. I say that is not possible with the normal god definiton. If he's not all powerful, then we can have free will. If he's not a loving god, he can choose to tone down his power, not know what we are going to do when he creates us and then watch. The reason he can't be loving and all powerful, is what kind of loving god would stand by and let the holocaust happen when he could have stopped it? | Instead of trying to refute these points with logic
and i tried to show you that logic serves only to account for the physical world: that's where cause-effect has its place.
you have it all here, the very foundation of modern science (from a believer in God... who would know):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason
i also tried to save you the bother of going through all steps of the explanation. but it probably cannot be done...
oh, and Albert Einstein believed in God too. one could easily get the feeling he was the person who understood our world better... he even predicted stuff (where have i heard this before)... but in the end of the day, a believer! what a moron, uh? | In regards to the BBC guy. Interesting he comes out with that at a time when the Conservative Government is talking about cutting down his 834 000 a year salary. "Please don't cut my wage. CEOs getting incredibly over inflated salaries is a core vaue of the right. I'm with you guys". I think his personal bias is more on show their.
This is why I don't waste too much time debating lefties. Onto the drive-by list with ya!
Did the lame excuse you drummed up make you feel better about being proven wrong?
Michael Savage is right when he says "liberalism is a mental disorder." | Psalm 2
1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. | insults? game over.
Then I guess Modi's game has been over for a very long time. Odd that you tolerate behaviour in him that you will not tolerate in others.
You request a reasonable dialogue. Modi has obviously no intention of engaging in such. Just look at the number of times we have answered the issues he has raised versus the number of times he has done the same.
The reason you don't want to talk about Modi is because you would be forced to acknowledge that he does not discuss in a reasonable or rational fashion. In his "discussions" his opinion is always right, opposed views are always wrong.
Einstein believed in a God very different from the one that you and Modi believe in, as you well know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views
Game over?
Grunge | @305 Logic can be applied not only to the physical world, but to others things to.
I was not talking about spirituality, when I was saying an all loving, all powerful god is not possible. It was logic, and logic can be applied to motivations. It's a classic of literature. The crime thriller ending with the detective working out the wife did it to collect the life insurance.
Proposition: God is all loving and all powerful.
Counter Proposition: God is all powerful or loving but not both.
Now I can use logic to work this out. I propose God can't be both as an all powerful being would use his power to stop evil things happening, so he's either not all powerful, or not loving.
While he's responsible for every newborn child, he's also responsible for every stillborn child. While he's responsible for every Dawn, he's responsible for every Tsunami.
There are many answer to how can a good god lets bad things happen. I'll let you throw them at me, but I'll refute the most common. "We have free will, so it is us, not god". What kind of free will does a still born child have? That soul is going to Purgatory for all eternity. Depending on your perspective, original sin can mean the child is going to hell, so a loving God would at least stop still births happening.
God test us by those things, and that's why bad things happen. I once again bring up those who have no time to make choices, to exercise their free will or who are overpowered by others. The still born, the murdered babies, the child prostitutes. Is it fair to test the faith of the mother of the still born child by sacrificing that child's soul? To test the morality of the soldier when he's raping a child and sacrificing that child's life? I think not.
Remember God made all. He could have made a world with no illness. He chose not to. Eve's penalty was painful childbirth, it didn't need to be risky. God chose to make it so. What kind of loving God makes the world with all the horrifying things in it?
This argument does not disprove God. It just disproves god is loving and all powerful. I'm also using it to show that you can easily show more than physical things with logic.
In regards to Einstein. Smart about physics doesn't necessarily give him any more insight on other areas. More people look to sportsmen as role models these days. That doesn't mean I'd want them as philosophers. | #309
Playing devil's advocate.
God test us by those things, and that's why bad things happen. I once again bring up those who have no time to make choices, to exercise their free will or who are overpowered by others.
Maybe the test wasn't to make a choice, but was to stay brave.
The still born, the murdered babies, the child prostitutes. Is it fair to test the faith of the mother of the still born child by sacrificing that child's soul?
Who says God sacrifices the child's soul? What sort of test is it if God leave out such an important issue?
Remember God made all. He could have made a world with no illness. He chose not to. Eve's penalty was painful childbirth, it didn't need to be risky. God chose to make it so.
Penalty included mortality.
What kind of loving God makes the world with all the horrifying things in it?
Tough love. Without shadow, there can be no light. Without evil, we won't recognize good. Without suffering, we shall know no relief. It is through adversity that we gain strength. Without challenges we remain docile and weak. | #309
And if my above post is logically refuted, there's always the cop out argument that just because we can't apply logic to God, doesn't mean it's not possible to. Also even if it is logically proven that God can't be all powerful and all loving, then it still doesn't mean anything. Why can't illogical things exist? | Remember God made all. He could have made a world with no illness. He chose not to. Eve's penalty was painful childbirth, it didn't need to be risky. God chose to make it so. What kind of loving God makes the world with all the horrifying things in it?
completely wrong understanding mate...
God created all and created things for good. but we people make wrong things(disobedience), because of that we are receiving punishment. | | Because god gave us free will.. When something ''bad'' happens to you it's because of your own doing! not god doing:) | The real problem with these concepts is that severe brain damage can render someone essentially without a personality. Progressive brain damage can also cause more and more degradation of the personality. So it is fairly obvious that there is a very physical basis for the personality being seated in the brain.
yes, for the personality (the traits or features the self assumes). no, for the spirit ( the "open window" of the soul). don't put that as a closed truth, it's not, some ppl have other views:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysical_parallelism
wanna know what's the difference anyway, in pratical terms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
Einstein believed in a God very different from the one that you and Modi believe in, as you well know.
you don't seem to have any idea what God i believe in. you don't seem to care, either. fine with me. as for Einstein, this quote from him suffices:
"I'm absolutely not an atheist."
make of it what will.
as for insults, i told Modi what i think of it some time ago. it's not something to be discussed in public. i try to behave, if you don't, i'm outta here.
all powerful god is not possible.
you wouldn't know what "all-powerful" means even if you wanted to. or know what space is, for that matter. or time. or eternity. or infinity. these are pure concepts we cannot represent singly. we can talk of them, but they are unactable. what is worse: saying you don't believe, or secretly believing you dominate such matters?
@Pantheon
something along those lines, yes. | About the ”turn the other cheek”: it's about not getting revenge if somebody did sth bad to you. I don't think it's this topic's case (this was mentioned more times in this thread).
What's atheists' perspective about the purpose of life? I mean:
Born, live, die, born, live, die, born, live, die, born, live, die... [boring]
Is all of this an accident? everything is so complex and all these things work together to survive.. just because some atoms randomly put together in a good way and things evolved (isn't entropy against it?) and the nature got more and more complex.. and in an infinite period of time there are much chances that everything will be dead due to a big tragedy and all we did on Earth is gone.. and all atoms will be waiting for another random creation?
I think the Creator makes more sense. | In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
Repeated attempts by the press to present Albert Einstein as a religious man provoked the following statement - "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
In a 1954 letter to Eric Gutkind, Einstein wrote - "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These [...] interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
And let's put your quote in it's full context - "I'm absolutely not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."
This position is significantly different from the position of any Christian belief that I am aware of. Starting to engage is misdirection and misrepresentation, Syrian?
Grunge | i do not believe we can qualify God. it's beyond our comprehension.
The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.
for the limited mind of Albert Einstein.
not for the unlimited mind of Grunge, of course. | #315
I think the Creator makes more sense.
Hmm... so an all-powerful all-knowing supreme being that created all this complexity makes sense? Anyone with common sense would call you crazy.
Alternative? Science's theory about everything just randomly happening by chance? Again anyone with common sense would think that's crazy.
I think it's far more likely that the universe does not exist. That we do not exist. And in fact you are not reading these non-existent words. | I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I claimed to "know" God.
I don't think there is a heaven, nor hell. I imagine, if there is a God he's nothing that humanity can understand or even predict. This is why I find all religions to be patently ridiculous, because they claim to "know" what cannot be known.
I certainly don't do (or not do) things because of the "threat" of divine retribution.
Now Syrian, you are descending into the tactic of trying to place words in the mouth of others, simply to bolster your flagging position. Is that really a "Christian" thing to do?
Grunge | This is why I find all religions to be patently ridiculous, because they claim to "know" what cannot be known.
there's lots of ppl out there that think you can't even know "obejcts in themselves", only representations of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_perception |
<<|<|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|>|>>Back to topics list
|
