Cult or Religion [Archive]

Big_John

07-02-2005, 06:05

A cult is a religion without political power.that's about the weight of it. however, semantically speaking, a cult is a collection of people, whereas a religion is a belief system. a cult is pretty much always (and may be defined as?) a group of people united by a belief system. now, one can certainly define a religion as a belief system, and as such, cult members practice some form of religion.

also probably part of the practical definition of a cult is the situation that the beliefs of the cult are in some way antithetical and/or threatening to the society under which they exist. this goes back to the "without political power" observation. in order for any ol' like-minded gathering to be considered a cult, in the pejorative sense of the word, it needs to gain the attention (read: ire) of the powers-that-be. normally this is done by the cult trying to co-opt or disrupt the power of a society over the cult members (e.g. maintaining massive arms stockpiles, not paying taxes, drinking the poison kool-aid).

Don Corleone

07-02-2005, 06:07

Duh, I not so smart as yous guys. I still believe in God. I do as told. I can't say good or bad. Sorry, maybe my boss, uh, minister can tell you what I think.

There, does that fit your smug little definition of what we crackpot neanderthals that are still stupid enough to believe in God sound like? Cause I do, and I find the question, as well as the responses thus far, a touch on the insulting side. If you can't distinguish between Heaven's Gate and Mother Theresa, there's nothing else I can say then what I did at the beginning.

PanzerJaeger

07-02-2005, 06:09

I see them in terms of numbers. A religion has hundreds of years and billions of people behind it. A cult is relatively new (usually but not always), but always has a small number of members - compared to a religion.

Lemur

07-02-2005, 06:18

I find the question, as well as the responses thus far, a touch on the insulting side. If you can't distinguish between Heaven's Gate and Mother Theresa, there's nothing else I can say then what I did at the beginning.
I had no intention of insulting anyone with my answer. In fact, I was trying to come up with the most neutral response possible.

Until Constantine converted, Christianity was seen as a cult. Afterwards, it was a religion. There's no assessment there of how true or untrue its core beliefs may be -- that's for the faithful to decide.

From your perspective, isn't it possible for a religion to be just as wrong as a cult? Meaning to say, if the only path to salvation leads through Jesus Christ, isn't an established religion such as Buddhism as theologically wrong as, say, Scientology? Or as wrong as Heaven's Gate, to use your example.

If you want to discuss which religions are theologically and spiritually sound, that's a different subject. King of Atlantis was asking for a distinction between "cult" and "religion." Pretty straightforward.

Don Corleone

07-02-2005, 06:21

Well, if I'm being a bit thin skinned, I apologize. Hearing religion and cults equated tends to get my goat.

Has it ever dawned on you wizards of philosophy that perhaps the answer lay in the results achieved? When was the last time a cult opened a soup kitchen, or started a home for unwed mothers, or a battered woman's shelter? Or an AIDS clinic? Most mainstream religions are proud of the fact that they offer ministries in all of these areas and more.

Lemur

07-02-2005, 06:33

Hearing religion and cults equated tends to get my goat.
"Cult" just means that a group has a religious belief and no political power. That's all it means. It's seen as a negative word because it's applied to every nutjob with a compound and some Kool Aid. But remember, every religion would have been considered a cult when it began. Not by believers, of course, but by society at large.

No group would ever label itself a "cult" -- to do so implies that they're on the fringe. It's a term used by society at large to diminish people with minority religious views. As soon as that group gets some money and some clout, hey presto, they're a religion.

People with jungle compounds and persecution complexes do form cults, correct. But they're not the only ones -- any (relatively) powerless religion falls into the category.

Would somebody with better Latin than mine step in here? Didn't the Romans repeatedly refer to Christianity as a "slave cult," since it preached the socially unacceptable idea that slaves had souls and could be saved? Again, the early Christians would not have accepted the label, but that hardly matters -- it's a term the established and powerful get to use against the upstart and powerless.

Gawain of Orkeny

07-02-2005, 06:46

"Cult" just means that a group has a religious belief and no political power.

I think that pretty much sums it up. Most religions are considered cults untill they are accepted by the masses. In fact didnt ancient religions have cults within them just as we have different sects of Chritains , Jews and Muslims?

King of Atlantis

07-02-2005, 07:03

Big_John

07-02-2005, 07:11

Don, i didnt mean for this topic to offend you(im christian ~:) )

The argument at twcenter was that some people were considering any religion a cult. I always think of a cult as something that ends in mass suiccide and i dont know any religions that teach this.well, it would be incorrect to assume everything we define as a cult practices ritual- and/or mass-suicides, or conversely, to assume that such practices are confined to "cults". famous examples like the "people's temple" or "heaven's gate" justifiably get all the news, but one could argue that luddite sects of 'non-cult' religions (e.g. the amish) are certainly responsible for many deaths due to negligence at least. also, martyrdom, a very specific class of suicide is certainly acceptable in many religions, iirc.

King of Atlantis

07-02-2005, 07:24

I know not everything classified as a cult is bad, but i think religions like that should be considered religions, instead of cults.

Samurai Waki

07-02-2005, 09:01

I always though that Religion was the formation of a massive spiritual movement and a cult was formation of a radical spiritual movement.

I.E. We Can all Agree Money is Good (religion) but all of our money should be spent on making the infrastructure of our society better (cult)

Colovion

07-02-2005, 09:37

After reading numerous books about secret societies, cults and being raised in a Christian home all my life I have come to the following conclusion:

People want to belong to something. People enjoy organisations of people; in that we strive to communicate in more than verbal and physical ways. People like power. People like to think about supreme beings and spiritual entities because it gives them a feeling of comfort.

it's all the same basket - people being humans and using their minds to find other descriptions for the goings-on of the environment they inhabit. Esentially all religions, cults and secret societies have the same ideologies and they are listed above.

I don't believe that religion can be sectionalized into the constraints of modern religious doctrine, I feel it's on a much broader spectrum.

Beirut

07-02-2005, 12:39

As I've mentioned several times, I work with Jehova's Witnesses and I know plenty more of them. They most certainly do not consider themselves a cult. They do consider the Catholic church a cult. While I find the Jehova's have many cultish practices, I find the Catholics have just as many if not more.

They are both cults and religions. In reality, what is the difference? They all adhere to one simple and overwhelming belief; I'm right and you're worng.

Duke Malcolm

07-02-2005, 13:31

Tempted by the offer of free food, I went to a popular cult church just along the road, called the Gate. I left after half an hour for fear that I would be brain washed and forced to join a mass suicide... so I think I'll send an e-mail to the Inquisition...

Big_John

07-02-2005, 16:06

hey man, free food is free food.

Pindar

07-02-2005, 17:41

In academic circles cult can refer to an emerging sect or outgrowth of an established devotional system. Sect would be the more common usage.

In common parlance cult is a pejorative typically used to deride a belief system. The idea being the system is somehow dangerous. Cults are typically seen as containing at least the following traits: a charismatic leader, tendencies to remove from or disassociate with society at large, coercive conversion techniques which include difficulty in leaving the group and financial strains on membership. The term remains a fairly subjective label however.

bmolsson

07-03-2005, 04:50

ichi

07-03-2005, 06:15

I am part of a church, everyone else is part of a cult

King of Atlantis

07-03-2005, 07:14

you must have a small church then. ~;)

Zalmoxis

07-03-2005, 09:01

Guys, do you think if say Bush converts to some cult that has a million members, does that cult become a religion?

bmolsson

07-03-2005, 09:40

I am part of a church, everyone else is part of a cult

Are you a brick or something ?? ~;)

Navaros

07-03-2005, 15:58

original poster has a good point

really, the word "cult" is usually just thrown around in order to denote a religion that is perceived to be evil. hence cult & religion are pretty much the same thing.

of course, that is only because the word "religion" has now become so skewed and lost it's credibility over the years as a direct result of all the cults who have "upgraded" their cult to "religion" status

Quietus

07-03-2005, 16:54

Jesus Christ was cult leader because of the status of christianity back then (as Lemurmia has already pointed). Just as George Washington was a rebel.

Personally, I believe all religion are still a cult since a lot of their "teachings", particularly on the 'afterlife', 'god', 'creation', 'praying' etc. has no basis for truth at all.

Lastly, Jesus Christ was patterned after another older religious figure, Zoroaster (or Zarathustra). :charge:

King of Atlantis

07-03-2005, 18:56

I really dont see jesus in common with any other figure. His teachings are far differnt from the teachings common of the day.

Hurin_Rules

07-03-2005, 19:24

Linguistically, cult can mean either the group of people or the belief system. The word itself derives from the past participle of the Latin 'colere' (to cultivate), cultus ('worship'). So semantically, there is very little difference between religion (derived from the Latin 'religio', meaning 'bond', i.e. that tied one to the Gods). Hence, as Pindar has noted, in academic circles the words are synonymous. It is not an insult there to call Christianity a cult.

Its hard to open an AIDS centre when you have no political power.

I would agree that the usage really depends on size of the cult/religion and the extent of its political power.

Hurin_Rules

07-03-2005, 19:27

I really dont see jesus in common with any other figure. His teachings are far differnt from the teachings common of the day.

I'd have to disagree with you there. The Manicheeans, Zoroastrians, Neoplatonists, Stoics and Hebrews of the day all had beliefs that were similar in many respects to Christianity; I mean that few of the ideas expressed by Jesus and his followers cannot also be found in one or another of the other religions of the day. Brotherhood of man? Stoics talked about that first. Logos and Holy Spirit? Again, talk to the Stoics. Messiah? Hebrew prophets. Monotheism? OT Jews. I don't know of any other prophet, on the other hand, who emphasized Love so heavily as Christ.

ichi

07-03-2005, 19:37

Are you a brick or something ?? ~;)

I am the steeple (oh, and little stained glass window)

ichi

07-03-2005, 19:43

you must have a small church then. ~;)

I think you missed the point, which is that almost everyone (except atheists like Quietus) goes around thinking they are part of the one true religion, and that everyone else belongs to cult that is misguided at best, evil at worse. Quietus thinks all religions are cults. Others try to make academic distinctions between religion and cult, but there really isn't any other than 'We're right and the rest of you are fools', AKA 'I belong to a religion, you participate in a cult'

ichi :bow:

King of Atlantis

07-03-2005, 22:44

i got your point i was just playing off your words to make a joke. ~:cheers:

Steppe Merc

07-03-2005, 23:11

Cults are just small, unpopular religons.

GoreBag

07-03-2005, 23:26

I don't see a difference between religion and cult.

King of Atlantis

07-03-2005, 23:30

I don't see a difference between religion and cult.

nut it depends on your defintion of cult. If you consider any religion that isnt officially reconized, then your probably right, but i think the word cult should only be appleid to dangerous religions.

GoreBag

07-03-2005, 23:36

Well, I think it should be applied to all religions that have any kind of belief system that involves worshipping, revering or idealizing the traits of a figure, multiple figures or forces that are not beings.

King of Atlantis

07-03-2005, 23:40

the word cult does have negative conatations, so i wouldnt apply it to any religion unless it was proven dangerous/suicidal

GoreBag

07-04-2005, 01:18

I would.

Don Corleone

07-04-2005, 01:23

What Neon God and others in this thread are trying to say, King, and what I took offense to earlier, is that cult=religion. All are diabolical tools of mind control. Only stringent secular humanism frees a person from undue influence of a theological agent.

The fact that there is no more logical reason to not believe in God as there is to believe in God, and an assertion either way requires a 'leap of faith', means nothing. Any mention of God, divinity, higher power, or even morality, and you are a caveman, barely worthy of answering in the secular humanist's eyes. If anything, beyond being disgusted, they pity those of us who believe in something else.

Well, you folks are welcome to sit here and lump Mother Theresa and Jim Jones in the same context. I don't see an intelligent conversation taking place, so I'm exiting it. I need to go flail myself for my transgressions and receive a vision.

ichi

07-04-2005, 01:26

Cults are just small, unpopular religons.

exactly, if they had called themselves Blue Oyster Small Unpopular Religion they wouldn't have sold nearly as many albums

and religions are large, popular cults

ichi :bow:

@KoA ~:cheers:

bmolsson

07-04-2005, 03:03

I am the steeple (oh, and little stained glass window)

I guess I asked for that answer.... :embarassed: ~:grouphug:

Quietus

07-04-2005, 03:37

I think you missed the point, which is that almost everyone (except atheists like Quietus) goes around thinking they are part of the one true religion, and that everyone else belongs to cult that is misguided at best, evil at worse. Quietus thinks all religions are cults. Others try to make academic distinctions between religion and cult, but there really isn't any other than 'We're right and the rest of you are fools', AKA 'I belong to a religion, you participate in a cult'

ichi :bow: If you put it that way then so be it, at least from your point of view. We're only asking of any semblance of proof (from any religion or religious leaders or followers).

You can't really accuse anyone of murder if you have no proof. Much like saying:

'Oh there's a god alright! Why? Because you can't prove there is no god, there is one'.

Under that 'metaphysical' definition, then the lochness monster, elves, unicorns and chupakabra do exist because nobody can ever prove they don't exist.

Now what do you tell people who believe in the lochness monster, elves, unicorns and the chupakabra?

Saying there is a god is like saying there's a mole in your head. Well, show me the mole! Who told you there's a mole in your head if you can't prove there's a mole in your head?

Lemur

07-04-2005, 03:47

You folks are welcome to sit here and lump Mother Theresa and Jim Jones in the same context.
I don't think anybody's equating saints with mass murderers, or established religions with fringe loonies. That's sort of the point -- "cult" is a shortcut to deliniate between the responsible member of society and the unacceptable religious groups.

I fail to see why you find the (largely linguistic) discussion so bothersome.

Big_John

07-04-2005, 04:03

Godfather, Don Corleone, although i guess you're done with this thread, i'm going to respond to your last post.

all three of your posts in this thread have been unnecessarily antagonistic. why are you so angry about the question? with the seeming exception of quietus, no one is really pressing an attack on the legitimacy of piety. or am i missing the hostility directed at you and yours?

it's just a definitional/usage question. you seem to think that the distinction between cultism and religion lays in the 'achievements' of the belief (i.e. of the believers). that's as good a criterion as any. but can't someone hold a different opinion without it being an attack your convictions?

i want to raise a second point about this part:

The fact that there is no more logical reason to not believe in God as there is to believe in God, and an assertion either way requires a 'leap of faith', means nothing.while i know jack-all about formal logic, isn't the burden of proof itself imbued with a logical weight, so to speak? certainly you'd agree that the burden of proof is on the asserter. i guess one can argue about what is actually being asserted in such a discussion: the existence of god, or the non-existence of god.

Don Corleone

07-04-2005, 04:26

I'm not angry. I'm frustrated, but not just with this thread. In one thread, I have religious people of no small intelligence, who's opinions I respect, saying that unless people are willing to toe the party line of the more behavioralist interpretation of Christianity, people aren't really Christian. I change the channel, and I have a bunch of secular folks, again of high intelligence who's opinions I respect, saying essentially that religions and cults are essentially equal as they both are mind control tools. I simply pointed out that there is a world of difference in my mind between Mother Theresa, who was no secular humanist, and Jim Jones, who granted, wasn't either.

Where is the middle ground of allowing people to believe what they will without attacking their beliefs? I see none of it on any side.

As to your point about proving God's existence, and the onus being upon me, you're absolutely right. But proving God's non-existence is an equally perplexing hypothesis to defend, yet it seems to get a pass from the logical rigor you seem to be asking for. Saying "I don't think we can know" seems to be a fair position, but how is that people can be any more certain that God does not exist than they are that he does?

To close, one last point. If we could know for certain that God exists, that's not faith, that's acknowledging a fact. If the point of this thread is that any faith shows a flawed thought process, then perhaps I wasn't all that off in my assesment of it.

Big_John

07-04-2005, 04:53

ok, fair enough, sorry for confusing your frustration.

i think the point of the thread was to ask what difference, if any, we think exists between cults and religions. but you may be right, i could simply be missing the undertone.

i know very little about mother theresa to be honest, but i think it's safe to say no one has a very high opinion of jim jones. so i'm not sure why you feel the need to bring up the comparison. would you say that mother theresa is indicative of all religious people, and similarly, that jim jones is representative of all cult members?

again, i don't think anyone other than quietus (possibly) is really attacking you via your beliefs. would you think i'm attacking you if i said i don't agree with your criterion for the distinction?

i guess this is a separate topic.. but as far as the burden of proof goes, i guess the two parties have to agree to some ground rules before actually getting into that discussion. do you think there is nothing to the notion that the existence of a thing takes the burden of proof before the non-existence of a thing. i don't mean to insult your beliefs, but as an example, take pyschic ablities. in an argument about the existence of telekenesis, shouldn't the person that believes in this thing that is outside of commonly verifiable experience bear the greater burden of proof?

that said, i tend to agree with you (the above was a bit of devil's advocate). starting from a position of neutrality (i.e. ignorance) is ideal, if often hard to do.

ichi

07-04-2005, 06:24

Now what do you tell people who believe in the lochness monster, elves, unicorns and the chupakabra?

That for $100 I can provide them with charms that will protect them from such creatures

ichi :bow:

Big_John

07-04-2005, 06:35

That for $100 I can provide them with charms that will protect them from such creatures

ichi :bow:don't you cut in on my power-crystal business! :furious3:

Pindar

07-04-2005, 09:59

i want to raise a second point about this part:

The fact that there is no more logical reason to not believe in God as there is to believe in God, and an assertion either way requires a 'leap of faith', means nothing.

while i know jack-all about formal logic, isn't the burden of proof itself imbued with a logical weight, so to speak? certainly you'd agree that the burden of proof is on the asserter. i guess one can argue about what is actually being asserted in such a discussion: the existence of god, or the non-existence of god.

If theism and atheism are simply beliefs then no burden exists on either side as both positions reflect back on the subject rather than the larger world. If the terms are taken as making knowledge claims then: the theist is claiming God exists: this is a positive assertion which would then require a proof standard. The atheist is claiming God does not exist. This is a positive assertion about a negative. Logically this is problematic as one cannot prove a negative. Thus, the one would need to provide the proof while the other is an absurdity.

Hurin_Rules

07-04-2005, 17:17

Big_John

07-04-2005, 17:27

so is disbelief in the existence of god the same as the positive assertion that god does not exist?

Pindar

07-04-2005, 17:58

To the Romans, Christianity was a cult-- and a dangerous one at that. In fact, the Romans considered the Christians to be atheists, since they denied the existence of the olymoian pantheon and the divinity of the emperor. Just goes to show that one man's cult is another's religion.

This is one of the best examples of differing religious perceptions and the rhetoric employed.

Of course one cannot prove a negative. But in the absence of any evidence for God, the most logical course of action is either to A. not believe that one exists, or B. suspend judgement on the matter altogether. If not, as one person already pointed out, one would have to start believing in elves, unicorns and the dreaded (or divine?) head weasel.

One needs to make distinctions on unicorn questions and questions on Deity. The reason being the one is a creature in the world while the other is by definition a metaphysical Being. Given that knowledge of things that are more than a priori conditions (like the nature of a triangle) contain some empirical element: if one cannot breach the metaphysical barrier to see if the throne is occupied then reason would have to remain silent on the issue.#

#Of course natural theology has a number of proofs for an Absolute: the teleological argument for example: which interestingly is coming back into fashion via Intelligent Design (ID) proponents (though I haven't met any ID fans who knew enough to make the connection). Regardless, I personally don't find any of these stands to be compelling.

King of Atlantis

07-04-2005, 18:11

i think the point of the thread was to ask what difference, if any, we think exists between cults and religions. but you may be right, i could simply be missing the undertone.

Your not missing an undertone. Thats exactly why i started this thread.

Pindar

07-04-2005, 18:14

so is disbelief in the existence of god the same as the positive assertion that god does not exist?

I think it would depend on the speaker. There are certainly occasions where people will claim: "there is no god!" This would appear to be a positive knowledge claim and thus run into the logical conundrum I mentioned.

If someone says they don't belief in God because there is evil in the world or some such, then there is a conditional standard being put forward. One could assume that the removal of the standard as an issue would also remove the charge. Questions along these lines are inherently theological as the charge assumes a certain position about Deity and evil. The reply would also take a theological perspective.

If someone says they don't believe in God because they've never seen or experienced the Divine then it would appear they are actually open to the possibility of changing. In this case the position seems more agnostic.

Quietus

07-04-2005, 22:02

Don Corleone

07-04-2005, 22:29

No, he's not. He's saying that the argument to prove the certainty of the lack of existence of God is just as difficult to make as the argument proving the certainty of the existence of God.

What is so hard to understand about this? Unless you are omnsicent, or have died and been reincarnated, how can you KNOW that there is no God?

And why are you hanging intelligent design on Pindar's statements? You're the first person to bring it up.

And Lemurmania, you personally may not have been making the argument that religious folk should shut their mouths and keep it in the closet, but when every debate on separation of Church and state devolves to this, surely you can see I need not 'make straw men', folks on your side do it just fine for me.

You never did answer why it was a good thing to suspend a kindergardener for wishing somebody Merry Chri!$%! OOPS! I almost let it slip. You know, the birthdate of the great opressor that some neanderthals celebrate during the great and noble, long and storied winter solstice celebration. Or why a valedvictorian should be stripped of the title and not allowed to participate in graduation ceremonies for intending to thank an influence they clearly felt led them to be at the podium. Care to touch on that? Or are you just going to keep accusing me of making straw man arguments?

Quietus

07-04-2005, 22:48

No, he's not. He's saying that the argument to prove the certainty of the lack of existence of God is just as difficult to make as the argument proving the certainty of the existence of God.

What is so hard to understand about this? Unless you are omnsicent, or have died and been reincarnated, how can you KNOW that there is no God? Well, if there is no proof then there is no god, simple as that. What gave people the conclusion there is god in the first place? Any shred of proof?

And why are you hanging intelligent design on Pindar's statements? You're the first person to bring it up.
Pindar propped it up first.

#Of course natural theology has a number of proofs for an Absolute: the cosmological argument for example: which interestingly is coming back into fashion via Intelligent Design (ID) proponents (though I haven't met any ID fans who knew enough to make the connection). Regardless, I personally don't find any of these stands to be compelling

Don Corleone

07-04-2005, 22:52

Quietus

07-04-2005, 23:02

Okay, I'm going to put you in a featureless room. In the center of the room is a table. On the table is a box. I tell you there is $1000 cash under the box, but I say "I can't prove it to you without removing the box".

Does that PROVE that there is no money (or anything else for that matter) under the box?
- Material Dollars exist. (It is a currency).
- Concepts of numbers exist. (Count with your fingers).

The existence of dollars in our reality as well as the use of numbers in our society make "$1000" a very distinct possibility and probability. The only determination I have to do there is to analyze whether you are lying or not lying.

You cannot say the same thing to "God".

Oh, and btw, I guess I should have read Pindar's first post more closely. But you should have to. He wasn't arguing for Intelligent Design, it was a tangential reference. My point there is that Intelligent Design is no proof at all. It's a called a 'psychobabble'.

Don Corleone

07-04-2005, 23:10

- Material Dollars exist. (It is a currency).
- Concepts of numbers exist. (Count with your fingers).

The existence of dollars in our reality as well as the use of numbers in our society make "$1000" a very distinct possibility and probability. The only determination I have to do there is to analyze whether you are lying or not lying.

You cannot say the same thing to "God".

My point was that to prove that something doesn't exist, you have to have some knowledge about the thing that you cannot have with regards to a metaphysical being. But you bring up a good point. We're actually debating different types of existence, as in my example, there was proven existence of other like items in that class. Fair enough.

Okay, well then, I would say the amibiguity about the emotion of love certainly qualifies. You cannot prove even a single instance of one human being loving another. So, even though I have no proof love doesn't exist, the lack of proof that it does proves that it doesn't. I think this would be a congruous argument. You agree? No such thing as love?

My point there is that Intelligent Design is no proof at all. It's a called a 'psychobabble'.
He wasn't offering it as proof. He made reference to the fact that teleological arguments are coming into vogue among people who hold ID beliefs. Nowhere did he comment on ID's validity or assert that it was a proof of anything.

Quietus

07-04-2005, 23:24

My point was that to prove that something doesn't exist, you have to have some knowledge about the thing that you cannot have with regards to a metaphysical being. But you bring up a good point. We're actually debating different types of existence, as in my example, there was proven existence of other like items in that class. Fair enough.

Okay, well then, I would say the amibiguity about the emotion of love certainly qualifies. You cannot prove even a single instance of one human being loving another. So, even though I have no proof love doesn't exist, the lack of proof that it does proves that it doesn't. I think this would be a congruous argument. You agree? No such thing as love?
Love is real because you can feel it (yourself) and you can observe it (in other people). You cannot say the same thing about "god".

He wasn't offering it as proof. He made reference to the fact that teleological arguments are coming into vogue among people who hold ID beliefs. Nowhere did he comment on ID's validity or assert that it was a proof of anything.He's calling it a 'theological proof'. I was just pointing out it's not proof at all.

Don Corleone

07-04-2005, 23:31

Love is real because you can feel it (yourself) and you can observe it (in other people). You cannot say the same thing about "god".
Sorry, dont' mean to be disagreeable, but I cannot take 'you feel it' as proof positive. Try again.

Quietus

07-04-2005, 23:39

Sorry, dont' mean to be disagreeable, but I cannot take 'you feel it' as proof positive. Try again. Take a pin and prick yourself. Tell me if you 'feel' anything. If that's not a positive proof, I don't know what. ~:) Now prick someone else, observe if they 'feel' it.

At least i'm positive you cannot feel "god" at all.

Don Corleone

07-04-2005, 23:44

Big_John

07-04-2005, 23:44

Love is real because you can feel it (yourself) and you can observe it (in other people). You cannot say the same thing about "god".ok saturnus, let's see if this works...

that you can feel it means nothing to another. you cannot observe love. you could observe the effects of love on other people, assuming there are effects thereof. however, to attribute any given effect to the emotion of love takes a leap of faith. all of that is ignoring biochemistry, which undoubtedly can speak on the subject.

on the other hand, certainly love can be contended to exist based on the fact that it's a cognitive category. love is just a description of a relationship. a metaphysical realm is not required for love to exist. unless god is a natural being, beholden to physical law, a metaphysical realm is required for god to exist.

At least i'm positive you cannot feel "god" at all.how can you be positive of that?

Pindar

07-04-2005, 23:53

Pindar, you're basically saying it is ok for people to say there is god without any proof whatsoever.

If there is no proof, how do you disprove it? Intelligent design is baseless. What's the basis of 'intelligent design'?

It's OK for people to say whatever they wish. If however they are making a knowledge claim and that claim is based on reason then there are certain constraints. A rational knowledge claim about the larger world would require some empirical basis. When you move beyond the physical arena empirical appeals become impossible. Therefore something that remains metaphysically removed is beyond the rational mind to definitively address. This means unaided reason cannot make an absolute conclusion about the question of Deity. The gate remains closed.

Intelligent Design seems to have come into its own relatively recently. I think its major proponents are from the same general groups who previously touted Creationism. The basis revolves around complex systems or objects that suggest an outside intent. This appears parallel to the Teleological Argument that is quite old. It's most famous advocate besides ST. Thomas was Paley (18th Cen.) who used the watch example. He imagined if one found a watch on a beach. The watch would suggest a watchmaker even if the actual fellow was not present. This is then taken as a corollary for aspects of the physical universe and Deity. The ID advocates I have met have been ignorant of the formal Teleological Argument: its history or the logical issues it faces.

Quietus

07-05-2005, 00:08

Now pain's not the same thing at all. There's pain receptors in our neural structure. You can hook somebody up to an EEG and monitor their responses and you can see from a physilogical point of view, they are in pain.

No such physilogical explanation exists for love. You can still feel it nonetheless, that's the key. Is there a physiological explanation for numbers? You just count numbers, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Can you feel god at all? ~:)

You're saying you believe in 'god' that you cannot feel,
But you don't believe in 'love' that you can feel.

how can you be positive of that? There's no proof of god whatsover in any form.

t's OK for people to say whatever they wish. If however they are making a knowledge claim and that claim is based on reason then there are certain constraints. A rational knowledge claim about the larger world would require some empirical basis. When you move beyond the physical arena empirical appeals become impossible. Therefore something that remains metaphysically removed is beyond the rational mind to definitively address. This means unaided reason cannot make an absolute conclusion about the question of Deity. The gate remains closed. Problem with this is that a metaphysical god is imaginary at best.

Pindar

07-05-2005, 00:09

He's calling it a 'theological proof'. I was just pointing out it's not proof at all.

I'm the pronoun, so let me explain: Natural Theology is a technical term. It applies to Scholasticism which was/is a theological position. Scholastics, heavily influenced by Aristotle attempted to logically demonstrate the existence of God.

A proof is a logical term. It means the conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises. A proof is a condition of a valid argument. Validity and logic proper are formal: this means they do not depend on reality to have force. The force lies within the structure of the argument itself. One can have a valid argument: a proof, without it having to any tie to the real world (including MTV programming).

Pindar

07-05-2005, 00:11

Problem with this is that a metaphysical god is imaginary at best.

How do you know?

Big_John

07-05-2005, 00:12

There's no proof of god whatsover in any form.so you take absence of proof as proof of absence?

bmolsson

07-05-2005, 00:33

Take a pin and prick yourself. Tell me if you 'feel' anything. If that's not a positive proof, I don't know what. ~:) Now prick someone else, observe if they 'feel' it.

At least i'm positive you cannot feel "god" at all.

Interesting. So you consider sound outside the human ability to hear as not existing ? Light outside the human eyes spectrum as darkness ?
The senses humans are equipped with are not really a good reference.

Further more, can you prove there is no God ? How was life really molded ?

Quietus

07-05-2005, 00:34

How do you know? Where's the proof? In any form?

so you take absence of proof as proof of absence? It's not just absence of proof, it's also the absence of any form of supporting evidence.

You can't say John Doe is guilty just because he can't prove he's not guilty.
You can't say God exists just because nobody can prove he doesn't exist.
You can't say Unicorns exists just because nobody can prove it doesn't exist.

You have to prove it first! Otherwise it is imaginary.

How can you disprove something that doesn't exist in the first place? Theoretically, I can name an infinite number of things you cannot disprove it doesn't exist. I'll just mix any number of letters.

Sample, disprove this doesn't exist:

- kara kiree king kong kang.

Just because there's an absence of proof for a 'kara kiree king kong kang' it exists?

Big_John

07-05-2005, 00:44

It's not just absence of proof, it's also the absence of any form of supporting evidence.ok, so you take absence of evidence as evidence of absence?

Hurin_Rules

07-05-2005, 01:16

Just interested Pindar:

When you refer to Aquinas' Teleological Argument, are you referring to the 'Five Ways' from the Summa Theologiae, or a more general reference to argument by design? It seems to me that not all of the Five Ways are Teleological, which is why I ask.

~:cheers:

Quietus

07-05-2005, 01:16

ok, so you take absence of evidence as evidence of absence? One of the reasons yes.

Interesting. So you consider sound outside the human ability to hear as not existing ? Light outside the human eyes spectrum as darkness ?
The senses humans are equipped with are not really a good reference. You can't measure/observe/prove god using gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, infrared, microwave or radiowaves either, so what makes visible light that important in your argument?

Further more, can you prove there is no God ? How was life really molded ? Excellent question. Nobody really knows how life was 'molded' but that doesn't prove an existence of god.

- Life took billions of years to evolve to us, your all-powerful god if he intended life not as a random event would created life in a snap.

- Mutation and evolution are inherently random, hence destroying any chance of 'intelligent design'. God designing 'life' meant it shouldn't be random at all!!

- 'Life', as humans define it, is limited to Earth. Not Mars, not Venus or any other planets in our solar system. That tells you that 'life' as we humans define it is limited solely to Earth. Hence there was no 'design' to create life in the first place.

- If your god is omnipotent, omniscient and all-knowing, who's the creator of your god? Man created god in his own likeness not the other way around.

:charge:

Pindar

07-05-2005, 02:16

Originally Posted by Quietus

Problem with this is that a metaphysical god is imaginary at best.

Pindar: How do you know?

Where's the proof? In any form?

You are switching things some. Your first statement suggests knowledge about God or rather that God is imaginary. What is the source of this knowledge? How is this knowledge demonstrated?

Pindar

07-05-2005, 02:19

Hurin_Rules

07-05-2005, 04:30

I'm referring specifically to Thomas' Fifth Proof in the Summa.

Ah, fair enough then.

Roark

07-05-2005, 05:03

Back to cults for a second...

For anyone who fails to see the distinction between cults and religion, cults are basically micro-mutations of religion. They often capitalise on the facets of commonly recognised religions, and then twist or distort them. An organisation possessing one, or even a couple, of these attributes is not necessarily a cult. Some intelligent thought (as opposed to axe-grinding) is required.

I got them from the Caltech website:

How do I tell if a group is a cult?
As is true with so many important questions, there is often no clear or general answer. Below are indicators that are found, to varied degrees and numbers, in all groups that are considered cults. To the basic question of 'what is a cult?', maybe the best answer is simply, a group in which there are many of these indicators:

Extreme Promises - Unconditional, eternal love; financial security; complete certainty about life; answers to all questions; superhuman abilities; radical personality change; profound and constant peace of mind; perfect health; eternal life--all are promises commonly made by cults.

Restricted Freedoms - Because these groups want control, they need to limit their members' basic freedoms. This includes restricting physical mobility; forbidding doubts or questions; removing the right to choose whom to spend time with, and when; prohibiting the exploration of other ways of thinking and living.

Assumptions Of Power - Often restrictions of freedom can also become active abuses of power. The group leader, or others designated to have power, may require members to perform tasks, acquire money, perform rituals, and to provide sexual services. And rather than use outright authority, cult leaders will present these demands or requirements as "opportunities" offered to those in special favor.

A Central Leader - Virtually all cults are headed by a single person (sometimes a couple or triad) who either claims special knowledge and status or who claims special access to it (contact with superhuman intelligence). A particular indicator of a cult is being told that this person knows what is best for you, regardless of your opinion or that of others you trust. To defy him or her is dangerous and can result in anything from disapproval to ostracism to physical punishment. Although a cult may claim to follow an absent leader (dead spiritual master, a non-corporeal intelligence, a being from another planet or physical plane), there will always be a present leader who benefits from the groups' existence.

Deception and Totalitarian Views are other components of cults. We may notice that what is told to "recruits" and "outsiders" is different than what is professed within the group. This sort of lie can be as basic as soliciting money for the group under false pretenses. Also, "black or white" or "we and they" thinking is common. "They" are bad, or ignorant, or deceived, or unevolved, or dangerous. "We" are good, enlightened, special recipients, evolved, or under siege. However, in some groups, pervasive ambiguity can be used as camouflage from the cult's actual beliefs and intents.

King of Atlantis

07-05-2005, 05:21

You can still feel it nonetheless, that's the key. Is there a physiological explanation for numbers? You just count numbers, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Can you feel god at all? ~:)
You're saying you believe in 'god' that you cannot feel,
But you don't believe in 'love' that you can feel.

You can feel love, but you cant prove you can.
I can feel god, but i cant prove i can

There's no proof of god whatsover in any form.

Thats the whole point of faith. God could easily give tons of proof that he exisits, but what would be the point to that.

You know famous people get sad that they dont know if people like them for who they are or because they are famous. It is the same with God.

Problem with this is that a metaphysical god is imaginary at best.

I'd say real at best ~;)

Hurin_Rules

07-05-2005, 05:59

Extreme Promises - Unconditional, eternal love; [...] complete certainty about life; answers to all questions; superhuman abilities; radical personality change; profound and constant peace of mind; perfect health; eternal life--all are promises commonly made by cults.

So, Christianity is a cult after all?

Big_John

07-05-2005, 06:44

So, Christianity is a cult after all?it is rather curious that all 5 of those conditions can be met, to a greater or lesser degree, by bascically any religion.

You know famous people get sad that they dont know if people like them for who they are or because they are famous. It is the same with God.i had no idea that god was so insecure! :shocked3:

Papewaio

07-05-2005, 07:30

It's OK for people to say whatever they wish. If however they are making a knowledge claim and that claim is based on reason then there are certain constraints. A rational knowledge claim about the larger world would require some empirical basis. When you move beyond the physical arena empirical appeals become impossible. Therefore something that remains metaphysically removed is beyond the rational mind to definitively address. This means unaided reason cannot make an absolute conclusion about the question of Deity. The gate remains closed.

But we can test miracles or other earthly manifestations?

----

As for love we can measure physical changes (heart rate, sweat, brain stimulus) and actions. We have far more access to measure this then say talking burning trees.

[cynical plus]
Is it really love or just a chemical concoction to get us in the mood for procreation or another chemical concoction to protect the progeny?[/cynical plus]

----

The definition of cults could apply to the election process...

Roark

07-05-2005, 08:09

As I attempted to explain, there needs to be some critical process in examining these benchmarks.

They were merely indicators which are commonly found in groups widely considered to be cults, not a definition.

The United States Marines also "qualifies as a cult", if one takes ONE of the indicators as a black-and-white gospel definition, which it is not.

Pindar

07-05-2005, 08:30

But we can test miracles or other earthly manifestations?

I would think so.

Of course one should note: a basic theistic position doesn't require Divine involvement in Human affairs. Aristotle's Absolute would serve as an example.

As far as systems that do admit Divine interaction: even noting some apparent miraculous event: like changing water into wine doesn't tell the observer the source of that event. Is it some heretofore unrecorded natural oddity? Is it Divine will made manifest or is it the Devil up to some deviltry?

Quietus

07-05-2005, 09:22

You are switching things some. Your first statement suggests knowledge about God or rather that God is imaginary. What is the source of this knowledge? How is this knowledge demonstrated? You believe in god whence there is no proof of such, hence I called it imaginary or imagined. ~:)

Thats the whole point of faith. God could easily give tons of proof that he exisits, but what would be the point to that.

You know famous people get sad that they dont know if people like them for who they are or because they are famous. It is the same with God. See, you're giving 'god' human characteristic. Man made 'god' in his own likeness.

I can feel god, but i cant prove i can If you feel god that is proof enough, however since it's only you and not the other billions of worshippers, I have a hard time believing this. ~:)

King of Atlantis

07-05-2005, 09:29

See, you're giving 'god' human characteristic. Man made 'god' in his own likeness.

think about it. If god gave all the proof you needed to believe in him, then you would believe. But what is the point of that. All he asks is a leap of faith and if you are not willing to take it so be it

If you feel god that is proof enough, however since it's only you and not the other billions of worshippers, I have a hard time believing this. ~:)

im not the only person whos felt god. infact you will find that most religious people would tell you that they have felt god.

*One of the best feelings i have ever gotten was truly asking god for forgivness.

*Feeling love is another way of feeling god.

The word good basically means of god. So that would mean anything that is good is of god. So anything god is proof of god in a way.

Quietus

07-05-2005, 09:43

think about it. If god gave all the proof you needed to believe in him, then you would believe. But what is the point of that. All he asks is a leap of faith and if you are not willing to take it so be it So if your local priest tells you that god instructed him that you hand all your possession to him, you'll believe this? It's leap of faith after all.

im not the only person whos felt god. infact you will find that most religious people would tell you that they have felt god.

*One of the best feelings i have ever gotten was truly asking god for forgivness.

*Feeling love is another way of feeling god.

The word good basically means of god. So that would mean anything that is good is of god. So anything god is proof of god in a way. You're the first .ORG member I know who claimed to have felt god. The rest haven't indicated they had.

It's been quite I while since I asked the question: "can you feel god", so I assume the rest haven't ~:)

King of Atlantis

07-05-2005, 09:48

So if your local priest tells you that god instructed him that you hand all your possession to him, you'll believe this? It's leap of faith after all.

If i felt god was really asking me to do that then i might, but im probably to selfish.

You're the first .ORG member I know who claimed to have felt god. The rest haven't indicated they had.

It's been quite I while since I asked the question: "can you feel god", so I assume the rest haven't ~:)

Have you ever heard of the holy spirit? It is Jesus's spirit in us. It is kinda a basic christian principal.

Yes you can feel GOD, but it isnt really obvious.

For example, When im praying i certainly feel like im praying to someone and not just talking to myself.

When asking for forgivness, I feel a sense of relief that cant be felt any other way.

Quietus

07-05-2005, 10:08

If i felt god was really asking me to do that then i might, but im probably to selfish. Well, you were talking about 'leap of faith'....

Have you ever heard of the holy spirit? It is Jesus's spirit in us. It is kinda a basic christian principal.

Yes you can feel GOD, but it isnt really obvious.

For example, When im praying i certainly feel like im praying to someone and not just talking to myself.

When asking for forgivness, I feel a sense of relief that cant be felt any other way. Ok. Just for future reference, it is 'principle' not 'principal'. ~:)

King of Atlantis

07-05-2005, 10:14

Well, you were talking about 'leap of faith'....

I will take a leap of faith for good, not some man who claims he knows what god wants me to give him some money. My church asks for money, but never forces people to give or make them feel guilty for not giving it.

Ok. Just for future reference, it is 'principle' not 'principal'. ~:)

ok. just for future reference i am a horrible speller. ~:)

Quietus

07-05-2005, 10:30

I will take a leap of faith for good, not some man who claims he knows what god wants me to give him some money. My church asks for money, but never forces people to give or make them feel guilty for not giving it. So if a priest tells you that there is an 'afterlife' you believe him right away. But if he asks you for all your possessions you won't.

Basically you will believe anything that's in the Bible. Suppose there is a line in the bible that says: 'Give away all your material things to the church'.

See, that's the problem with religion, you will believe anything that is written in the 'holy text'. No questions asked, in which you call 'leap of faith'.

It doesn't matter if this 'holy text' was written by your fellow man to lead you into believing it is the word of 'god'. ~:)

A.Saturnus

07-05-2005, 13:08

It all depends on the size of your steeple...

King of Atlantis

07-05-2005, 21:55

So if a priest tells you that there is an 'afterlife' you believe him right away. But if he asks you for all your possessions you won't.

Basically you will believe anything that's in the Bible. Suppose there is a line in the bible that says: 'Give away all your material things to the church'.

See, that's the problem with religion, you will believe anything that is written in the 'holy text'. No questions asked, in which you call 'leap of faith'.

It doesn't matter if this 'holy text' was written by your fellow man to lead you into believing it is the word of 'god'. ~:)

I do not take the bible lliteraly, as i believe it is mans work, inspired by god. The main things i follow are the teachings of jesus, as they are the noblest teachings i have ever heard.

Quietus

07-05-2005, 23:33

I do not take the bible lliteraly, as i believe it is mans work, inspired by god. The main things i follow are the teachings of jesus, as they are the noblest teachings i have ever heard. How do you reconcile religions with different versions of the 'truth'? The answer is you can't.

Muslims say Mohammed is the last prophet. Christians say it is Jesus, who is the son of God. Jews say Jesus isn't even the Messiah.

Now if you take out religion and god out of the equation....

~:cool:

Pindar

07-06-2005, 00:25

Originally Posted by Pindar
You are switching things some. Your first statement suggests knowledge about God or rather that God is imaginary. What is the source of this knowledge? How is this knowledge demonstrated?

You believe in god whence there is no proof of such, hence I called it imaginary or imagined. ~:)

You have switched things again. I have made no comment about my personal beliefs. If I had, it still wouldn't keep you from having to justify your claim.

Now you use the word proof here: I have explained that proof is at its core a logical term. A logical proof for God is fairly easy to come up with, but as I explained that would be formal and may not reflect reality. My guess is you are using proof is the sense of some empirical schema. The problem here is you have already admitted that God is metaphysical. Applying an empirical proof to a metaphysical object is a category mistake.

So, I ask again: what is the source of this knowledge and how is it demonstrated?

Pindar

07-06-2005, 00:28

How do you reconcile religions with different versions of the 'truth'? The answer is you can't.

Muslims say Mohammed is the last prophet. Christians say it is Jesus, who is the son of God. Jews say Jesus isn't even the Messiah.
:

Different religions may make different truth claims. Compatibility isn't required. They are mutually exclusive systems.

Quietus

07-06-2005, 00:51

You have switched things again. I have made no comment about my personal beliefs. If I had, it still wouldn't keep you from having to justify your claim.

Now you use the word proof here: I have explained that proof is at its core a logical term. A logical proof for God is fairly easy to come up with, but as I explained that would be formal and may not reflect reality. My guess is you are using proof is the sense of some empirical schema. The problem here is you have already admitted that God is metaphysical. Applying an empirical proof to a metaphysical object is a category mistake.

I said 'god' being metaphysical is imaginary at best because there's no proof. The key word is not 'metaphysical' but 'imaginary'. To rephrase it again: calling 'god' metaphysical is an imagination because there are no form of proof.

What non-empirical proof can you provide? What compelled you to believe there is 'god' in the first place (that is if you wish to elucidate).

So, I ask again: what is the source of this knowledge and how is it demonstrated? I already answered this: no proof, empirical or otherwise, hence imaginary. Just because I used the phrase 'metaphysical god' meant I accepted the concept as real.

A 'metaphysical god' is imaginary because nobody can prove it. Can you prove that a square-root of a negative number is a real number?

Here's what I said:

Problem with this is that a metaphysical god is imaginary at best. It's very clear what I meant there. I'm not acknowledging god is metaphysical, I'm saying, a metaphysical god is imaginary.

Roark

07-06-2005, 01:16

It's been quite I while since I asked the question: "can you feel god", so I assume the rest haven't ~:)

Don't assume.

It makes...

...well, you know the rest.

~;)

Pindar

07-06-2005, 01:48

I said 'god' being metaphysical is imaginary at best because there's no proof. The key word is not 'metaphysical' but 'imaginary'. To rephrase it again: calling 'god' metaphysical is an imagination because there are no form of proof.

What non-empirical proof can you provide?

It's actually quite simple. For example:

(1) Nothing has meaning without God.
(2) I have meaning
(3) Therefore, God exists.

This is a basic proof.

Now about your statement: Do you understand what metaphysical means? Are you suggesting God should be more properly thought of as in the physical world? The metaphysical basis for Deity goes back the very beginnings of the Western Intellectual Tradition. It is tied up in the logic of perfection. Now if you wish to challenge that view, I would be interested in your position.

You also said: "calling 'god' metaphysical is an imagination because there are no form of proof."

Since I have given you a simple proof this position doesn't seem to hold. I still think, you think, proof as an empirical schema. Aside from the category mistake: if we assume God is part of the physical universe, does your position hold? The absence of "proof" means something doesn't exist: it is "imaginary". This seems to be your view. If I'm right, your view reminds me of the old story about the King of Siam. When the King of Siam met the first White Men to enter the kingdom he was curious: about them and what kind of men they were. He asked them many questions. During one of their answers it was mentioned they had seen water that was hard: hard enough to cut through a ship at sea and that this water was white and very cold to the touch. Hearing this and knowing that no proof could be given he understood that White men were liars and he had their heads cut off.

Now the logic of science is inductive. This means it goes from little to big. For example: I see one white swan then ten then a thousand. From this I conclude that swans are white. Experience with particulars leads to a general conclusion. Now because I have seen a thousand white swans does that mean a swan cannot be another color? If that were our conclusion how would we justify it? We could certainly say: we have only seen white ones, but that is not a exclusive principle. The point is: the perceived absence of a thing does not mean the thing cannot be. Therefore if God is brought down from Heaven and stuck somewhere in the physical universe, our not having found Him doesn't mean He isn't to be found. From the perspective of science: charging something is imaginary is logically more difficult than you suppose.

What compelled you to believe there is 'god' in the first place (that is if you wish to elucidate).

Nothing has compelled me to believe in God.

Big_John

07-06-2005, 02:21

Pindar,

what is meant by this?

"It is tied up in the logic of perfection."

i've never understood the concept of "perfection" to be honest, could you elucidate it for me? nothing to hijack the thread, just a short (as possible) description, if you have the time/desire. thanks.

Quietus

07-06-2005, 03:54

It's actually quite simple. For example:

(1) Nothing has meaning without God.
(2) I have meaning
(3) Therefore, God exists.

This is a basic proof. 'Meaning' is a human construct. Like 'good' or 'bad' or 'love' or 'hate' etc.

The keyboard you are tapping has meaning to you, but you have no meaning to it.

Much like Venus has no meaning Mars or vice versa. The Earth doesn't mean anything to the Sun. The Sun means a lot to Earth though.

God doesn't mean anything to a piece of rock.

Now about your statement: Do you understand what metaphysical means? Are you suggesting God should be more properly thought of as in the physical world? The metaphysical basis for Deity goes back the very beginnings of the Western Intellectual Tradition. It is tied up in the logic of perfection. Now if you wish to challenge that view, I would be interested in your position. First, what is the 'logic of perfection'? if you don't mind explaning.

You also said: "calling 'god' metaphysical is an imagination because there are no form of proof."

Since I have given you a simple proof this position doesn't seem to hold. I still think, you think, proof as an empirical schema. Aside from the category mistake: if we assume God is part of the physical universe, does your position hold? The absence of "proof" means something doesn't exist: it is "imaginary".
This seems to be your view. That's one of the reasons, yes.

If I'm right, your view reminds me of the old story about the King of Siam. When the King of Siam met the first White Men to enter the kingdom he was curious: about them and what kind of men they were. He asked them many questions. During one of their answers it was mentioned they had seen water that was hard: hard enough to cut through a ship at sea and that this water was white and very cold to the touch. Hearing this and knowing that no proof could be given he understood that White men were liars and he had their heads cut off. Glaciers or Icebergs do exist, the 'white men' were not incorrect in the least because they have evidence back home.

However, none of you have evidence back home. The King of Siam did not pursue an option to investigate. In terms of 'god', there are no options to investigate.

Also, this same mistake will be hard to replicate in the modern world.

Now the logic of science is inductive. This means it goes from little to big. For example: I see one white swan then ten then a thousand. From this I conclude that swans are white. Experience with particulars leads to a general conclusion. Now because I have seen a thousand white swans does that mean a swan cannot be another color? If that were our conclusion how would we justify it? We could certainly say: we have only seen white ones, but that is not a exclusive principle. The point is: the perceived absence of a thing does not mean the thing cannot be. Therefore if God is brought down from Heaven and stuck somewhere in the physical universe, our not having found Him doesn't mean He isn't to be found. From the perspective of science: charging something is imaginary is logically more difficult than you suppose. By this same logic, the perceived absence of Leprechauns doesn't mean it doesn't exist? ~:)

Then how do you go about disproving Leprechauns when they are always on the other side of the Rainbow?

Nothing has compelled me to believe in God. Ok, let me rephrase: at what point in your life did you start believing in 'god'? (doesn't have to be specific at all).

Pindar

07-06-2005, 04:18

Pindar,

what is meant by this?

"It is tied up in the logic of perfection."

This is a calculus developed by the Greeks. It was meant to demonstrate the properties of the governing principle.

This approach had a major impact on the Jesus cult (to reference the topic ~:) ) when the followers of the movement encountered Hellenism in all its glory and attempted to justify their position accordingly. This was no easy task as you have God being tabernacled in flesh*, praying, dying, resurrecting etc. The Ecumenical Councils i.e. Nicene 325 A.D., and the rise of the idea of the Trinity are good examples of the end product.

i've never understood the concept of "perfection" to be honest, could you elucidate it for me? nothing to hijack the thread, just a short (as possible) description, if you have the time/desire. thanks.

Perfection in Greek is telos or (teleios) it suggests the end point, completeness, or the full maturation of a thing. For a particular, like an acorn, the telos would be growing into a tree. For mankind or the universe this would include the very fulfillment of true being.** God or the Absolute would be a reflection of this ultimate principle of actualization. Understanding the nature of true being was the ethical. Manifestations of the ethical would be the virtues and actualization the good.

*The notion that Deity could actually be bodily confined like in the Greek myths (Zeus etc.) had long been rejected by the Greek intelligentsia in favor of allegorical readings of the myths to uncover their "true" meaning. Allegorical reading of text was later adopted by Philo when interpreting the Old Testament and Christians: i.e. St. Ambrose & St. Augustine for understanding their own canon.

** True being refers to eternal verities that are not subject to decay or corruption: mind unfettered for example.

I like your signature. ~;)

Big_John

07-06-2005, 04:38

This is a calculus developed by the Greeks. It was meant to demonstrate the properties of the governing principle.

This approach had a major impact on the Jesus cult (to reference the topic ~:) ) when the followers of the movement encountered Hellenism in all its glory and attempted to justify their position accordingly. This was no easy task as you have God being tabernacled in flesh*, praying, dying, resurrecting etc. The Ecumenical Councils i.e. Nicene 325 A.D., and the rise of the idea of the Trinity are good examples of the end product.

Perfection in Greek is telos or (teleios) it suggests the end point, completeness, or the full maturation of a thing. For a particular, like an acorn, the telos would be growing into a tree. For mankind or the universe this would include the very fulfillment of true being.** God or the Absolute would be a reflection of this ultimate principle of actualization. Understanding the nature of true being was the ethical. Manifestations of the ethical would be the virtues and actualization the good.... uhh... yeah.....

know any good books/essays to read on the subject? i think i need a primer. :worried:

I like your signature. ~;)me too!!! ~:cheers:

Hurin_Rules

07-06-2005, 04:49

Pindar:

In the absence of any empirical evidence, how do you know that the 'proof' you offered to quietus has any relation to reality at all?

If you're going to play Anselm, I'll play Gaunilo ~:)

Pindar

07-06-2005, 04:53

'Meaning' is a human construct. Like 'good' or 'bad' or 'love' or 'hate' etc.

God doesn't mean anything to a piece of rock.

Regardless how you understand 'meaning' the proof holds. That is the point.

First, what is the 'logic of perfection'? if you don't mind explaning.

I gave a simple explanation in the reply to Big John (he's really big). Tell me if it isn't clear enough.

Glaciers or Icebergs do exist, the 'white men' were not incorrect in the least because they have evidence back home.

You've missed the point. The world (the system) the King occupied didn't allow for the possibility. Now replying the King could have trekked up North and eventually found something, because Ice does exist in the world speaks of a confidence that is already outside the system, as it were. From the King's perspective the notion was absurd.

For most, a physical Deity stuck somewhere in the universe is absurd. If that is the God you are addressing, one could retort: "you just need to trek through the universe enough to find Him" and your own vaunted position would seem undercut until you had done just that. Of course, this is not how most theists think about Deity. If you want to engage the common theist you need to speak to the commonly held notion.

The King of Siam did not pursue an option to investigate. In terms of 'god', there are no options to investigate.

If there are no options to investigate that would seem to suggest that is the wrong schema. As I mentioned, science applies to the physical not the metaphysical.

By this same logic, the perceived absence of Leprechauns doesn't mean it doesn't exist? ~:)

Of course! Now you may want to say it isn't prudent to believe in Leprechauns, but that is different from claiming a proof they don't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative logically.

Ok, let me rephrase: at what point in your life did you start believing in 'god'? (doesn't have to be specific at all).

Does it matter?

Pindar

07-06-2005, 05:01

... uhh... yeah.....

know any good books/essays to read on the subject? i think i need a primer.

Sorry. I tried to be clear by focusing on the Greeks and noting a little the larger impact on religous thought. I think Lovejoy addresses perfection in: The Great Chain of Being (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674361539/qid=1120622112/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8451003-6918442?v=glance&s=books).

Pindar

07-06-2005, 05:20

Pindar:

In the absence of any empirical evidence, how do you know that the 'proof' you offered to quietus has any relation to reality at all?

If you're going to play Anselm, I'll play Gaunilo ~:)

You don't. Logic isn't about reality. It is about validity. Validity is the necessity of a conclusion based on the premises. Rationalists believe (assume) that truth is ordered and accessible to logic. This is the logocentrism I'm sure you hear English Majors mutter as they wander around your campus.

Papewaio

07-06-2005, 05:32

** True being refers to eternal verities that are not subject to decay or corruption: mind unfettered for example.

So True being is a metaphysical thing?

If it was physical it would create and/or be subject to entropy.

Quietus

07-06-2005, 05:54

Regardless how you understand 'meaning' the proof holds. That is the point. "Meaning' is a human construct. If I say 'beautiful skies' what does it mean to you? Blue skies and white clouds and maybe some sun is the very likely answer.

What if you were born totally blind? The 'meaning' of 'beautiful skies' is lost if you read it on braille.

'Meaning' is according to whom and what.You don't mean anything to Venus, Mars or Pluto.

When you die, your form will dissipate and your last molecular form (before you died) will be dispersed and will be absorbed everywhere: say a worm and a piece of rock etc.

Now, does your new form have any understanding of meaning? It's not universal at all.

I gave a simple explanation in the reply to Big John (he's really big). Tell me if it isn't clear enough. Thank you, I'll read it. :balloon2:

You've missed the point. The world (the system) the King occupied didn't allow for the possibility. Now replying the King could have trekked up North and eventually found something, because Ice does exist in the world speaks of a confidence that is already outside the system, as it were. From the King's perspective the notion was absurd. It's not about being absurd, it's about the possibility of investigation.

The white men came from Point A to Point B. What physically precludes them (including the King of Siam) from going from Point B to Point A?

You can't apply the same logic or analogy to finding 'god' (assuming that's what you were entreating in the first place).

For most, a physical Deity stuck somewhere in the universe is absurd. If that is the God you are addressing, one could retort: "you just need to trek through the universe enough to find Him" and your own vaunted position would seem undercut until you had done just that. Of course, this is not how most theists think about Deity. If you want to engage the common theist you need to speak to the commonly held notion.Commonly held notions doesn't automatically mean 'the truth' or any form of validity. That's the sticking point. Real or invention? True or imagination?

If there are no options to investigate that would seem to suggest that is the wrong schema. As I mentioned, science applies to the physical not the metaphysical. What led you to believe that the 'metaphysical' world is valid the first place?

Of course! Now you may want to say it isn't prudent to believe in Leprechauns, but that is different from claiming a proof they don't exist. It is impossible to prove a negative logically. So you do believe in Leprechauns? (Hopefully not). ~:cool:

Does it matter? To me yes. Because I have a follow up question: What caused you to be a believer at that point in time? (again, you do not have to answer this) ~:)

Big_John

07-06-2005, 06:18

So True being is a metaphysical thing?

If it was physical it would create and/or be subject to entropy.hmm, i was thinking something very similar. weird.

don't know if/when i'll get to lovejoy, but i wandered across this amateur's analysis on a website (http://www.listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.6511) that was much more my speed:

1. Qualitative perfection. This is identity, or the absence of confusion. Identity has has two aspects, internal and external.

Internal identity is clarity. The clarity of a thing is the singularity of all its parts or qualities. A singular part or quality is simply one part or quality. A thing is unclear if several of its parts together are are perceived as being a singular part.

External identity is the condition of being distinct. The distinctness of a thing consists in its being seen to be the one thing that has its set of qualities.

2. Relational perfection. This is harmony or the absence of conflict. Harmony has two aspects, internal and external.

Internal harmony is coherence. This is the absence of conflict between the parts of a thing.

External harmony is compatibility. This is the absence of conflict between a thing and other things.

3. Quantitative perfection. This is precision. Precision has two aspects, internal and external.

Internal precision is completeness. A thing is complete if it has all the parts it must have to satisfy its definition.

External precision is simplicity. A thing is simple if it has no parts in excess of those it must have to satisfy its definition.

To be perfect, a thing would have to embody all of the aspects of perfection.

Pindar, is bertie's #3 related to the greek's concept you mentioned? in your example, you talk about an acorn's perfect form, so to speak, being an oak tree. this is because the greek telos connotes an "end point"? in the scheme above, an acorn would simply be a perfect acorn, without relation to the oak tree, yeah? would the relationship of the oak to the acorn be bundled into the first aspect of bertie's scheme (identity)?

Pindar

07-06-2005, 18:21

So True being is a metaphysical thing?

If it was physical it would create and/or be subject to entropy.

From a Greek perspective yes. I think this would even apply with Aristotle given the emphasis he places on the Absolute in his 'Metaphysics'.

Pindar

07-06-2005, 19:15

"Meaning' is a human construct....
Now, does your new form have any understanding of meaning? It's not universal at all.

You didn't understand my reply. The definition or content of 'meaning' is irrelevant. I could give you a proof that Martians wear stripped pants. The force of the proof does not depend on how one understands Martian or whether they even exist. The force comes from the necessary conclusion being a product of the premises. Logic is a coherence schema. Let me give you another example:

1) A if and only if B
2) A
3) Therefore B

It's not about being absurd, it's about the possibility of investigation.

The white men came from Point A to Point B. What physically precludes them (including the King of Siam) from going from Point B to Point A?

You can't apply the same logic or analogy to finding 'god' (assuming that's what you were entreating in the first place).

If you argue that God is in the physical arena the analogy applies. The same also applies to Leprechauns. Now you would probably dismiss someone asking you to join them on an expedition to find Leprechauns (or God for that matter), but under your rubric you couldn't reject the base idea nor could you categorically reject their negative findings as conclusive unless you assumed God's perspective which would change the dynamic.

Now if you want to argue the notion of an extra-physical God, then science doesn't apply and it is a failure to understand the posture of science to attempt to do so.

In short, to use the term proof as the standard is fraught with difficulties from the perspective you seem to have taken. One: proof under its base use is a logical term. A logical proof can be put together in thirty seconds. Two: proof as a empirical standard fails given the object is not physical.

What led you to believe that the 'metaphysical' world is valid the first place?

I don't know what you mean by valid.

Belief is also irrelevant. The rub of the discussion is concerned with appropriate systems of investigation. Science is not an appropriate standard.

To me yes. Because I have a follow up question: What caused you to be a believer at that point in time? (again, you do not have to answer this) ~:)

You insist on personalizing I see. Alright. At what age: 19. Cause: revelation

Pindar

07-06-2005, 19:35

Pindar, is bertie's #3 related to the greek's concept you mentioned? in your example, you talk about an acorn's perfect form, so to speak, being an oak tree. this is because the greek telos connotes an "end point"? in the scheme above, an acorn would simply be a perfect acorn, without relation to the oak tree, yeah? would the relationship of the oak to the acorn be bundled into the first aspect of bertie's scheme (identity)?

No, bertie's ideas are different: telos is dynamic and does suggest a maturation. No, point prior to maturation could appropriately be called perfect as it is incomplete. A bad man is incomplete as he has become stunted from what could and should be.

Hurin_Rules

07-06-2005, 21:36

Pindar

07-06-2005, 22:07

Let me see if I can express my objections clearly.

The faith you have in the system of logic, Pindar, seems similar to the faith you have in the existence of an omnipotent, metaphysical being: it is devoid of any evidence I would see as compelling, or even suggestive. You can say logic has validity, but of course you would admit (I am assuming) that this is more a belief than a logical conclusion itself (if not, the argument is clearly circular). A leap of Faith, if you will. But there is nothing you can really do to tie your belief in God, nor in the rules of logic, to the actual (i.e. physical) world. Moreover, philosophers and scientists will differ on the actual rules and implications of western logic itself; so here we are not dealing with one belief, but many. None are conclusive, none can advance any physical evidence and none can show that they have any correlation with reality (i.e. physicality) at all.

I don't understand your objection. Are you saying you don't believe logic exists? Are you saying you reject rationality?

To be clear: rationality is the implementation or use of logic. Logic is a schema that systematizes and clarifies via necessary conclusions. Rationalists assume that truth can be apprehended through logical lines and by extension cannot violate logical principle. For example: a square-circle cannot exist, or God cannot be otherwise than perfect. A contrary conclusion would be an absurdity and violate the base concepts' core meaning. The belief in rationality is foundational to Western Civilization.

There is no difference in the 'rules' of logic between science and philosophy. Science is a product of philosophy and utilizes inductive logic.

Papewaio

07-07-2005, 02:57

3. Quantitative perfection. This is precision. Precision has two aspects, internal and external.

Internal precision is completeness. A thing is complete if it has all the parts it must have to satisfy its definition.

External precision is simplicity. A thing is simple if it has no parts in excess of those it must have to satisfy its definition.

What is more simple:

A) A universe that works by itself.
B) A universe that works by itself with a being that has no phyiscal effect on that universe.

Surely having a God is having a part in excess of the whole?

Papewaio

07-07-2005, 03:12

For example: a square-circle cannot exist, or God cannot be otherwise than perfect. A contrary conclusion would be an absurdity and violate the base concepts' core meaning. The belief in rationality is foundational to Western Civilization.

A square-circle cannot exist in Euclidian Geometry.

In perspective Geometry the two shapes are different (I cannot off the top of my head think of any shadow that they would have the same, and no cheating with giving a third dimension and the same side shadow).

However in general topology a square and a circle are the same thing...

bmolsson

07-07-2005, 03:58

God cannot be otherwise than perfect.

Why is this logical ?

Roark

07-07-2005, 04:55

You guys are racing apples vs oranges, imho.

The man-made systems of logic and rationale are an inadequate tool for observing and measuring a supposedly omniscient entity like God/Allah...

ichi

07-07-2005, 05:56

Why is this logical ?

Because if God isn't perfect, then he/she/it/they/whatever isn't God, simply a higher being.

ichi :bow:

Pindar

07-07-2005, 08:56

A square-circle cannot exist in Euclidian Geometry.

In perspective Geometry the two shapes are different (I cannot off the top of my head think of any shadow that they would have the same, and no cheating with giving a third dimension and the same side shadow).

However in general topology a square and a circle are the same thing...

I don't understand the point of this post. Are you attempting a challenge to reason or simply challenging the example? If this is supposed to be an attack on the example note: we're dealing with concepts. The base notion of a circle is: a curve that is equidistant from a given central point. A square is: a quadrilateral made up of four equal right angles. Now if you wish to argue that a square-circle exists lets start with a definition. Define square-circle maintaining the base continuity of the previous definitions.

King of Atlantis

07-07-2005, 08:59

This argument is getting technical :dizzy2: .

Pindar

07-07-2005, 09:01

The man-made systems of logic and rationale are an inadequate tool for observing and measuring a supposedly omniscient entity like God/Allah...

That is certainly one view. It is commonly know as the via negativa. It has reference in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius, Christian mysticism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Pindar

07-07-2005, 09:02

This argument is getting technical :dizzy2: .

Sorry.

King of Atlantis

07-07-2005, 09:11

Sorry.

nothing to be sorry about. ~:cheers:

Papewaio

07-07-2005, 09:21

I don't understand the point of this post. Are you attempting a challenge to reason or simply challenging the example? If this is supposed to be an attack on the example note: we're dealing with concepts. The base notion of a circle is: a curve that is equidistant from a given central point. A square is: a quadrilateral made up of four equal right angles. Now if you wish to argue that a square-circle exists lets start with a definition. Define square-circle maintaining the base continuity of the previous definitions.

Challenging the example. Depending on the criteria used / perception they are the same thing.

In Eucledian Geometry a square is different from a circle due to the axioms used.

In other mathematical systems such as Topology a circle and a square are the same while a figue eight is different to both of them.

Pindar

07-07-2005, 09:29

Challenging the example. Depending on the criteria used / perception they are the same thing.

In Eucledian Geometry a square is different from a circle due to the axioms used.

In other mathematical systems such as Topology a circle and a square are the same while a figue eight is different to both of them.

Define square-circle without compromising the base meaning of either term.

Papewaio

07-07-2005, 09:35

In Non-Eucledian space they can have the same shape.

The Universe is non-Eucledian.

Essentially if you use the same definitions of a circle and a square as defined in Eucledian space they can appear the same in a non-Eucledian space.

For instance on a sphere a triangle will have a total internal angle non equal to 180.

Pindar

07-07-2005, 09:56

Hurin_Rules

07-07-2005, 17:06

Here's an example that contradicts one of the laws of logic (and remember, most of the laws of logic were developed before Einstein):

The law of non contradition states that any proposition is false that states that something is both 'A' and 'not A' at the same time and in the same respect.

Take a one meter yardstick. Now consider two people viewing it. One is stationary relative to the yardstick, the other travelling vertically at near the speed of light. To observer # 1, the yardstick appears one meter long. To observer #2, the yardstick appears two meters long. In fact, appears is the wrong word to use-- they yardstick IS two different lengths at one and the same time. The physics of it is sound. The principle of non-contradiction has been shown fallacious because it does not take perspective into account. The yardstick is both one and two meters long at the same time and in the same respect (length).

Why am i citing this example? To show that when logic and concepts are simply assumed to be true, without any empirical evidence, you get caught going down intellectual pathways that are long, complicated and usually both sterile and fallacious. In Wittgenstein's words, its 'just metaphysics'. There is no sound reason to believe in the 'validity' or whatever you call it of such proofs, just as there is, similarly, no sound reason to believe in God.

Pindar

07-07-2005, 19:13

Here's an example that contradicts one of the laws of logic (and remember, most of the laws of logic were developed before Einstein):

Take a one meter yardstick. Now consider two people viewing it. One is stationary relative to the yardstick, the other travelling vertically at near the speed of light. To observer # 1, the yardstick appears one meter long. To observer #2, the yardstick appears two meters long. In fact, appears is the wrong word to use-- they yardstick IS two different lengths at one and the same time. The physics of it is sound. The principle of non-contradiction has been shown fallacious because it does not take perspective into account. The yardstick is both one and two meters long at the same time.

Why am i citing this example? To show that when logic and concepts are simply assumed to be true, without any empirical evidence, you get caught going down intellectual pathways that are long, complicated and usually both sterile and fallacious. In Wittgenstein's words, its 'just metaphysics'. There is no sound reason to believe in the 'validity' or whatever you call it of such proofs, just as there is, similarly, no sound reason to believe in God.

So, you are rejecting rationality. If that's the case, nothing more can really be said as any attempt to change your mind would itself involve using reason.

Just so it is generally understood: the example cited doesn't hold. Not just because Einstein was involved in a rational project or that people can only approach the subject matter using reason, but that the 'law of noncontradiction' as found in Aristotle is the following:

" One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

The formula is: -(P or -P) It is an existence claim: dealing with the existence or non-existence of a thing, which in simple terms means not everything can be true. This should not be confused with the law of excluded middle which is: for any P it is either (-P or P) which Aristotle had issues with as described in his sea battle paradox but many considered resolved through Tarski's primary criterion for truth claims (P if and only if P ) meaning that if a thing is indeterminate then no justification should be assigned.

Hurin_Rules

07-07-2005, 19:24

So, you are rejecting rationality.

No. I am saying that rationality should be treated like a scientific theory rather than a divinity.

If we find new evidence that contradicts our theory, then we should change the theory, not ignore the evidence. What would happen if we discovered that light was both particle and wave? What would happen if you found a square circle, your metaphorical block of ice? What if the Lord himself came down from on high to show them to you?

Pindar

07-07-2005, 20:46

No. I am saying that rationality should be treated like a scientific theory rather than a divinity.

If we find new evidence that contradicts our theory, then we should change the theory, not ignore the evidence. What would happen if we discovered that light was both particle and wave? What would happen if you found a square circle, your metaphorical block of ice? What if the Lord himself came down from on high to show them to you?

Logic, like mathematics, is a formal system. This means it is theoretical. It cannot therefore have the same evidentiary issues as science. This does not mean different logical systems do not have different foci or do not respond to different challenges however. This can clearly be seen in the shift from Classical Logic to the logical universe of the present as ushered in by Frege. If your point was that logic should respond to issues as they present themselves: I don't know any that would disagree with you. This does not mean however, that all claims are equal, that rigor is unimportant, or that truth is whatever is convenient.

Papewaio

07-07-2005, 21:50

A) Logic deals with absolutes
B) Reality is not absolute.

Therefore logic is not reality.

Quietus

07-07-2005, 22:25

You didn't understand my reply. The definition or content of 'meaning' is irrelevant. I could give you a proof that Martians wear stripped pants. The force of the proof does not depend on how one understands Martian or whether they even exist. The force comes from the necessary conclusion being a product of the premises. Logic is a coherence schema. Let me give you another example: Meaning is special only to Humans, that's what I'm saying, and other words such as "love" & "hate". It's not universal.

1) A if and only if B
2) A
3) Therefore B A is true according to whom? It is not universally true because it is a human construct. A snail can't say it has meaning because it doesn't the capacity to think. I can say a snail has meaning because I have the capacity to think.

Lastly, a human can also say he doesn't have any 'meaning'. So it depends on who do you believe. It's a human contruct and concept.

So if human X say "I have meaning"
And human Y said "I don't have meaning". Who do you believe? They are both humans.

If you argue that God is in the physical arena the analogy applies. The same also applies to Leprechauns. Now you would probably dismiss someone asking you to join them on an expedition to find Leprechauns (or God for that matter), but under your rubric you couldn't reject the base idea nor could you categorically reject their negative findings as conclusive unless you assumed God's perspective which would change the dynamic.

Now if you want to argue the notion of an extra-physical God, then science doesn't apply and it is a failure to understand the posture of science to attempt to do so.

In short, to use the term proof as the standard is fraught with difficulties from the perspective you seem to have taken. One: proof under its base use is a logical term. A logical proof can be put together in thirty seconds. Two: proof as a empirical standard fails given the object is not physical. The problem is you guys 'assume' metaphysics. You can't assume metaphysics just like that. You can write or say metaphysics the same way you can write or say 'square root of -2' but they are just both concepts.

Where's the basis of 'metaphysics'? Pindar, you are a believer in metaphysics. Then, according to you (not me) how do you prove or disprove Leprechauns? Then, according to your method, are Leprechauns real or not real?

I don't know what you mean by valid.

Belief is also irrelevant. The rub of the discussion is concerned with appropriate systems of investigation. Science is not an appropriate standard. When I say valid, I meant it can be logically supported.

You insist on personalizing I see. Alright. At what age: 19. Cause: revelation Pindar, absolute not! ~:) You said nothing has compelled you to believe in god (so I rephrased my questions). Well, I say, that at one point in time you were a 'nonbeliever' (learning is brain development and vice versa). At one point in time, you became a 'believer' ( because you learned something). Hence something compelled you to believe. And in this case, it is the 'revelation'.

I don't believe in holy texts because they are all written by man. That's why I dismiss the notion of metaphysics, because if it can only be real if you assume that holy texts are valid in the first place.

Pindar

07-07-2005, 22:54

A) Logic deals with absolutes
B) Reality is not absolute.

Therefore logic is not reality.

As I believe I've already stated a couple of times: logic is formal. This means it is theoretical. This means the world of ideas. Intellectual systems the world over use ideas to explain and come to terms with 'reality' as it were. We find illustrations of this in: mathematics, grammar, logic for example. Logic is concerned with thought or the ways of thinking. It's purpose is to help clarify thought so less, as opposed to more, errors can be avoided. Now one can say reason isn't reality, but that seems to miss the point.

Pindar

07-07-2005, 23:39

Meaning is special only to Humans, that's what I'm saying, and other words such as "love" & "hate". It's not universal.

Yes, meaning may be special only to humans. The same can be said of 'truth 'or 'fire hydrants'. As I noted before: the meaning of a thing (even the meaning of meaning) is irrelevant if the discussion is concerned with proof. Proof is not concerned with meaning. It is concerned with necessity.

A is true according to whom? It is not universally true because it is a human construct. A snail can't say it has meaning because it doesn't the capacity to think. I can say a snail has meaning because I have the capacity to think.

Truth is not a factor. "A" is neither true nor false. It is an element of a proof. The same as the number 2 may be an element in a math problem.

Lastly, a human can also say he doesn't have any 'meaning'. So it depends on who do you believe. It's a human contruct and concept.

So if human X say "I have meaning"
And human Y said "I don't have meaning". Who do you believe? They are both humans.

Belief is irrelevant. The posit is what is significant. Look at the example again. It declares that an "A" (in this case "meaning") requires another condition "B" (in this case God): then a posit of "A" is given which means the other condition must apply. Other posits are not a factor.

The problem is you guys 'assume' metaphysics. You can't assume metaphysics just like that. You can write or say metaphysics the same way you can write or say 'square root of -2' but they are just both concepts.

Yes we guys are trouble makers. Producing concepts like: the number '4', the shape 'circle', the notion 'truth' etc.

Where's the basis of 'metaphysics'? Pindar, you are a believer in metaphysics. Then, according to you (not me) how do you prove or disprove Leprechauns? Then, according to your method, are Leprechauns real or not real?

Metaphysics is a conceptual schema. It's basis is found in the attempts to create a coherent theory of being.

One proves Leprechauns exist by producing one. There is no negative proof.

Pindar, absolute not! ~:) You said nothing has compelled you to believe in god (so I rephrased my questions). Well, I say, that at one point in time you were a 'nonbeliever' (learning is brain development and vice versa). At one point in time, you became a 'believer' ( because you learned something). Hence something compelled you to believe. And in this case, it is the 'revelation'.

Compel suggests force, a loss of free will. My free will has never been compromised.

I don't believe in holy texts because they are all written by man. That's why I dismiss the notion of metaphysics, because if it can only be real if you assume that holy texts are valid in the first place.

So, you reject all things produced by or have man as a factor? Interesting. This of course means you would reject all knowledge, as man is intrinsically involved in any posit of knowledge. This includes all systems: Mathematics, science etc. man has produced.

Actually metaphysics isn't tied to religion. That is historically incorrect.

A 'holy text' by the moniker means something more than man as source.

Hurin_Rules

07-08-2005, 01:32

Actually metaphysics isn't tied to religion. That is historically incorrect.

Certainly it is. One need only read Plato.

Pindar

07-08-2005, 03:55

One need only read Plato.

That's right! Plato is a simple example.

Plato was a philosopher. Philosophy is a secular approach to knowledge. The modus operandi is reason. It doesn't require a religious basis to make truth claims.

Hurin_Rules

07-08-2005, 04:43

That's right! Plato is a simple example.

Plato was a philosopher. Philosophy is a secular approach to knowledge. The modus operandi is reason. It doesn't require a religious basis to make truth claims.

Yes, but of course Plato also talked about 'the good', the gods and the souls of the dead in the very same dialogues in which he talked about reason. Historically speaking, the separation between 'reason' and 'revelation' is a rather recent invention. The pythagoreans were geometers who viewed their mathematical truths as theology. The Stoics, Plotinus and the Neoplatonists, even the medieval scholastics had a horrible time separating the two. We in the modern world are making distinctions that the ancients would not recognize. In its origins, then, western philosophy--at least the types that were immediately influential--is inextricably linked to religious speculation. Metaphysics is to religion as branch is to tree.

bmolsson

07-08-2005, 07:16

I don't understand the point of this post. Are you attempting a challenge to reason or simply challenging the example? If this is supposed to be an attack on the example note: we're dealing with concepts. The base notion of a circle is: a curve that is equidistant from a given central point. A square is: a quadrilateral made up of four equal right angles. Now if you wish to argue that a square-circle exists lets start with a definition. Define square-circle maintaining the base continuity of the previous definitions.

You add a third dimension, but only measure 2 dimensions. The distance from the central point can then be the same even if the view in 2 dimensions gives you a right angle....... :book:

You assume that you are dealing with 2 dimensions and based on that assumption you make a conclusion. If it in fact is 3 dimensions and your reference base remain 2 dimensions, you are in fact wrong.

A little bit like your view on religions...... ~:grouphug:

Quietus

07-08-2005, 12:41

Yes, meaning may be special only to humans. The same can be said of 'truth 'or 'fire hydrants'. As I noted before: the meaning of a thing (even the meaning of meaning) is irrelevant if the discussion is concerned with proof. Proof is not concerned with meaning. It is concerned with necessity. 'Fire Hydrants' and 'truth' can't be used to prove god either.

Truth is not a factor. "A" is neither true nor false. It is an element of a proof. The same as the number 2 may be an element in a math problem. 'Meaning' is subjective regardless. 'A' has to be true! Ok, here's some versions of your proof:

Humans can't see naturally without eyes.
I can see,
thus I have eyes.

Humans without eyes cannot see naturally
I have eyes,
thus I can see.

The 'A' in the proof is "I can see" and "I have eyes", they both have to be true!! If 'A' is false, then the proof doesn't work. Now that's not subjective because the proof encompasses only the person.

Here's a subjective one:

the .ORG respects the brightest member the most.
I am the brightest
Thus, I am the most respected.

Let me reiterate, according to whom? "I am the brightest" is subjective because it is not universally accepted here. Just as 'meaning' is not universally accepted in the universe, since your proof encompasses the whole universe (and not to mention a separate, 'metaphysical' one too).

Belief is irrelevant. The posit is what is significant. Look at the example again. It declares that an "A" (in this case "meaning") requires another condition "B" (in this case God): then a posit of "A" is given which means the other condition must apply. Other posits are not a factor. Yes, but 'meaning' is not universal hence, you can't apply it to prove god. I believe you though when you say, you have 'meaning', I will also believe anyone who say they don't have meaning, because the proof there is limited to the person. Now, if you include the whole physical universe and a very theoretical metaphysical dimension, then 'meaning' is no longer applicable.

Yes we guys are trouble makers. Producing concepts like: the number '4', the shape 'circle', the notion 'truth' etc. You can count to four. You draw a circle, make an equation for circles even eyeball it. But 'metaphysics' is completely theoretical.[/quote]

Metaphysics is a conceptual schema. It's basis is found in the attempts to create a coherent theory of being.

One proves Leprechauns exist by producing one. There is no negative proof. If so, in your own opinion, you do believe in Leprachauns?

Compel suggests force, a loss of free will. My free will has never been compromised. LOL ~:confused: . 'Compel' doesn't have any suggestive connotation of loss of free will. If you read a 'compelling' book, nobody's gonna force you to read it right?

So, you reject all things produced by or have man as a factor? Interesting. This of course means you would reject all knowledge, as man is intrinsically involved in any posit of knowledge. This includes all systems: Mathematics, science etc. man has produced.

Actually metaphysics isn't tied to religion. That is historically incorrect.

A 'holy text' by the moniker means something more than man as source. If the writings are baseless, I won't believe it of course. What I meant there is that I do not believe the bible because it was written by man, whereas it claims to be ideas from 'god'. And I only used the word 'holy texts' because there are many of them.

Pindar

07-08-2005, 17:40

Yes, but of course Plato also talked about 'the good', the gods and the souls of the dead in the very same dialogues in which he talked about reason. Historically speaking, the separation between 'reason' and 'revelation' is a rather recent invention. The pythagoreans were geometers who viewed their mathematical truths as theology. The Stoics, Plotinus and the Neoplatonists, even the medieval scholastics had a horrible time separating the two. We in the modern world are making distinctions that the ancients would not recognize. In its origins, then, western philosophy--at least the types that were immediately influential--is inextricably linked to religious speculation. Metaphysics is to religion as branch is to tree.

I understand what you are trying to say and I would agree Modern distinctions often have a contrived nature, but discussion of 'the good', god(s), souls etc. are not the exclusive domain of religion. More to the point: metaphysics is focused on the ultimate state of being. This has been a central concern for secular thought from the Pre-Socratics forward. Secular, in this case, would be defined as knowledge claims that do not depend on religious appeal: i.e priestly or canonical authority, or revelation etc. The hallmarks of Platonic metaphysics are wholly derived from rational analysis, not an appeal to religious authority or revelation. The same could be said of Aristotle's project where the word metaphysics finds its source. The same could be said of Kant or Hegel or Heidegger the list goes on. That religion may depend on philosophical positions, as happened in Early Christian thought with Neo-Platonism or during the Medieval Period when the Scholastics wrestled with Aristotle, is a separate issue. Philosophy is not religion though religion may wax philosophical and both may make reference to metaphysics.

Pindar

07-08-2005, 17:44

You add a third dimension, but only measure 2 dimensions. The distance from the central point can then be the same even if the view in 2 dimensions gives you a right angle.......

Sorry, I'm not convinced. Measuring only an aspect of a thing cannot then be taken as definitive for the thing.

Pindar

07-08-2005, 22:15

'Fire Hydrants' and 'truth' can't be used to prove god either.

'Meaning' is subjective regardless. 'A' has to be true! Ok, here's some versions of your proof:

It's clear you have never studied logic and perhaps I haven't been as clear as I should. Let me explain again: 'proof' in its logical context, which is its primary meaning, refers to the necessity that exists between a conclusion and its premises. Logic is not concerned with truth. Its concern is the necessity just mentioned. The truth value of any premise is not relevant. I noted you seem focused on whether some premise is 'subjective' or not. From a logical perspective this is irrelevant. The assertion and how it relates to what follows is what is important. Now I won't go into a discussion of your three logical problems save to tell you that only one of them (the last one) was actually valid. I don't want you to get distracted further with ideas that subjectivity has any place in logic. Whether something is subjective, objective, fat or thin does not matter.

Now I explained that the view: 'there is no proof for God so God doesn't exist' is mistaken. Logically a proof can be put forward and I did so. Empirically no determination can be made given the standards of science don't apply.

You can count to four. You draw a circle, make an equation for circles even eyeball it. But 'metaphysics' is completely theoretical.

Yes, metaphysics is theoretical meaning it is conceptual. The same applies to number and geometric shapes like circles. The number four is a concept that you apply to things you count. The things counted do not contain the number four as a characteristic. It is something the subject applies when grouping things. Circles are also concepts that you may apply to something you see that is a self enclosed curve.

If so, in your own opinion, you do believe in Leprachauns?

In my opinion do I believe? No, in my opinion: I don't believe.

LOL ~:confused: . 'Compel' doesn't have any suggestive connotation of loss of free will. If you read a 'compelling' book, nobody's gonna force you to read it right?

I'm sorry my good man, but you are wrong. Check any dictionary, you will find definitions along the following lines: Compel (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=compel)

If the writings are baseless, I won't believe it of course. What I meant there is that I do not believe the bible because it was written by man, whereas it claims to be ideas from 'god'. And I only used the word 'holy texts' because there are many of them.

Got it, so you reject out of hand anything that claims ideas from God. Sounds fairly dogmatic.

Big_John

07-08-2005, 23:16

Got it, so you reject out of hand anything that claims ideas from God. Sounds fairly dogmatic.without revelation, should one accept such ideas?

Pindar

07-09-2005, 06:54

Posted by Pindar
Got it, so you reject out of hand anything that claims ideas from God. Sounds fairly dogmatic.

without revelation, should one accept such ideas?

Not necessarily. I think the question is whether a categorical position can be justified. Revelation would seem to settle the question in the affirmative. Without a strong theoretical rationale that completely eliminates the possibility of an Absolute, I don't think categorical rejection is justified.

Agnosticism seems a reasonable position as it is necessarily open-ended. Standard notions of faith, since they do not assert to 'know', are also understandable given their scope.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread: if one is talking about knowledge claims the theist by asserting an Absolute exists should be able to point to some verification schema. The atheist who asserts no God exists would similarly have to demonstrate the source of this knowledge.

Big_John

07-09-2005, 07:59

Quietus

07-09-2005, 08:20

It's clear you have never studied logic and perhaps I haven't been as clear as I should. Let me explain again: 'proof' in its logical context, which is its primary meaning, refers to the necessity that exists between a conclusion and its premises. Logic is not concerned with truth. Its concern is the necessity just mentioned. The truth value of any premise is not relevant. I noted you seem focused on whether some premise is 'subjective' or not. From a logical perspective this is irrelevant. The assertion and how it relates to what follows is what is important. Now I won't go into a discussion of your three logical problems save to tell you that only one of them (the last one) was actually valid. I don't want you to get distracted further with ideas that subjectivity has any place in logic. Whether something is subjective, objective, fat or thin does not matter. What's the point of proof then if you can't distinguish fantasy from reality? I can inject pure fantasy in proofs then you'd be satisfied with that as well. That's what you seem to be driving at. Then what are the function of proofs?

I can say something totally ludicrous and it is still feasible:

Everytime noises are made from armpits a Star explodes
I made noise with my armpit
Hence, a Star exploded.

~:eek:

Now I explained that the view: 'there is no proof for God so God doesn't exist' is mistaken. Logically a proof can be put forward and I did so. I can equally say:

If it doesn't exist then you can't prove it
God doesn't exist
hence you can't prove it.

Empirically no determination can be made given the standards of science don't apply. How can you say that? That is double standard and an antithesis to itself. It is very contradictory.

You have a multitude of 'holy texts' written by man from god yet the 'metaphysical world' is out of scientific reach?

Man is physical, so is Science. Man can get messages from 'god' but to science it is impossible.

Man uses the exact same physical world for his senses. :dizzy2:

Yes, metaphysics is theoretical meaning it is conceptual. The same applies to number and geometric shapes like circles. The number four is a concept that you apply to things you count. The things counted do not contain the number four as a characteristic. It is something the subject applies when grouping things. Circles are also concepts that you may apply to something you see that is a self enclosed curve. You can't measure metaphysics, you've said it yourself. The rest that you've mentioned: circles and numbers do exist in the physical world.

Metaphysics is purely conceptual. It's even a bit inaccurate to call it theory at all since no basis for it all.

In my opinion do I believe? No, in my opinion: I don't believe.

You cannot prove or disprove god. Yet you believe in god.
You cannot prove or disprove leprechauns. Yet you don't believe in Leprechauns.

Where does the difference lie?

I'm sorry my good man, but you are wrong. Check any dictionary, you will find definitions along the following lines: Compel (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=compel) Sounds like a very old meaning. When I say: "what compelled you to vote for Candidate X"? It doesn't mean someone threatened you to vote for that person or you lost your free-will to vote on your own. ~:)

Got it, so you reject out of hand anything that claims ideas from God. Sounds fairly dogmatic. It's more of a common sense really. The ideas themselves I don't reject per se (technically).

If in the Bible it reads: "And God said 1+1 = 2". I disagree it was uttered by 'god'. But I believe in that equation though.

bmolsson

07-09-2005, 13:11

The atheist who asserts no God exists would similarly have to demonstrate the source of this knowledge.

Maybe it's just a theory..... ~D

bmolsson

07-09-2005, 13:14

Religion = This Forum.....
Cult = Pindars threads......

~;)

Hurin_Rules

07-09-2005, 16:46

I think the question is whether a categorical position can be justified. Revelation would seem to settle the question in the affirmative.

Whose revelation?

Religious beliefs are widely varied. Some believe in God as an absolute, others in many gods that personify aspects of the natural world. Doesn't the fact that they are all so different undermine their credibility? Why chose one over another? Why choose to believe any at all?

I agree with you that no one can prove God doesn't exist. On the other hand, if one starts to believe everyone's revelations, or even to pick and chose one over the other, one's position rapidly becomes untenable. How about the guy Descartes mentioned, who thought his head was made of clay? Do we have to believe him too, in the absence of any other evidence? Or how about someone who has a revelation from the Great Pumpkin? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that these things do not exist?

Pindar

07-09-2005, 22:29

right, i fully understand your position, and i agree with it. my question was simply meant to setup another:

in the absence of revelation, what, in you opinion, would be the logical stance regarding the existence of god (or indeed any metaphysical entity)? in other words, outside of revelation, are there logical reasons to reach any conclusion on the existence of god?

edit: afaik, agnosticism isn't so much a concluion as a decision to hold judgement. so the above question is more about positive or negative positions.

Metaphysical appeals go back to the very foundations of Western Thought. The reason for this tied to the attempt to understand ultimate reality. In order to do that without religious deference, philosophical thought required certain base notions. One of those operates off of the distinction between contingency and necessity. What is contingent, as the name suggests, could be otherwise: it may or may not exist. Necessity cannot be otherwise and therefore has a desired fixity. The phenomenal world is transient meaning not only things come to be and pass away but also that particular objects are themselves contingent. Following the insight of Parmenides that: "something cannot arise from nothing" and that the origins of the phenomenal world could not be itself as that would beg the question: a more fundamental state of being was required as source. This type of approach pointed to metaphysics: the realm of necessity.

The particulars of any metaphysic are system specific. They typically answer not only questions of existence, but also theories of knowledge (how it is acquired), notions of the good and its source, and aesthetics. All of the great systems of the West have found themselves pulled toward a metaphysical posture in order to account for and give coherence to an understanding of being.

In 1806, on the eve of the battle of Jena where Napoleon was about to crush the cream of Prussia's military: Hegel, an occupant of the city declared he had obtained "absolute knowledge". By this he didn't mean he knew everything about everything, but rather he had uncovered the formal system whereby knowledge is obtained and being operates. Hegel had massive impact on thought, not only through the muddled attempts of Marx to understand his work, but even those who vehemently disagreed him i.e. Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, had to respond to his writings. This has remained the case even up to Present day with the works of Derrida for example. Hegel is the last of the system builders of the Western Tradition. One of the reasons for this is because it is bloody difficult business. One of the other reasons is that with the expansion of science and education there has been a penchant for departmentalization and categorization whereby many academics being confined to their specialty actually lack the skills to take on the task. Many in the sciences illustrate this point in grand fashion. Despite science being a product of philosophy and operating off a branch of logic, few scientists have any training or understanding of even basic principles of logic let alone the relation of their chosen area of study to the larger scheme of things. Thus, if one encounters something as innocuous as "Intelligent Design" (that I mentioned earlier) few recognize it as the bastard child of an old philosophical view and so do not know the proper and simple way to respond. In short, there is a lot of messy thinking going on.

If one spends enough time in the gray halls of academia they will run into the notion: TOE "the Theory of Everything", but few if any have a clue on how to bring it about. Everyone knows what it should do and everyone knows the vast incompatibilities of say Relativity vs. Quantum Mechanics or the inherent metaphysical postures of mathematics or theoretical physics etc. but the way remains dark. I think there are reasons for this.

Quietus

07-09-2005, 22:34

The atheist who asserts no God exists would similarly have to demonstrate the source of this knowledge.

Maybe it's just a theory..... ~D

If you substitute non-Leprechaun believers to atheist and God to Leprechauns:

Nobody can prove Leprechauns because there are no proof they exist.

How do you prove the Leprechauns' non-existence? If so, are you a believer in Leprechauns or not?

Lastly as on to Pindars' non-empirical proof:

It's actually quite simple. For example:

(1) Nothing has meaning without God.
(2) I have meaning
(3) Therefore, God exists.

This is a basic proof.

Anything that weighs over 130 lbs is heavy
I weigh 140 lbs
Hence I am heavy.

This is only applicable on Earth. On the Moon? In Space, the proof doesn't fly. That's why it has to be universally accepted. 'Meaning' doesn't fly either.

Meaning is a human construct. It is a function of the human brain. Weigh is the function of gravity which is the function of mass and distance of two masses.

That 'Meaning' proof encompasses the whole universe and then some (metaphysical dimension). That's why the proof doesn't work. ~:)

Pindar

07-09-2005, 23:01

What's the point of proof then if you can't distinguish fantasy from reality?

The point of logic is to provide necessity and objectivity which can then serve as the blueprint for building a understanding of truth.

Me: Empirically no determination can be made given the standards of science don't apply.

How can you say that? That is double standard and an antithesis to itself. It is very contradictory.

Science deals with the physical. It cannot speak to issues that are outside that standard. For example science cannot prove logic exists thought it depends on it to operate.

You have a multitude of 'holy texts' written by man from god yet the 'metaphysical world' is out of scientific reach?

Man is physical, so is Science. Man can get messages from 'god' but to science it is impossible.

Yes, holy writ operates off of revelation. Revelation is asymmetric. This means it is a one way affair: God has complete access to man, but man cannot breach the Gates of Heaven by his own power.

You can't measure metaphysics, you've said it yourself.

Where did I say this?

The rest that you've mentioned: circles and numbers do exist in the physical world.

Alas, you need to do a little more thinking on this. Both are ideas.

Metaphysics is purely conceptual. It's even a bit inaccurate to call it theory at all since no basis for it all.

Metaphysics is conceptual. It isn't really a theory. It's basis depends on one's attitudes toward rationality.

You cannot prove or disprove god. Yet you believe in god.
You cannot prove or disprove leprechauns. Yet you don't believe in Leprechauns.

Where does the difference lie?

I have experienced God, I haven't experienced Leprechauns. A more general answer is that Leprechauns are creatures in the world, God is not. Now, since I don't have any experience with Leprechauns and no one is really claiming they are about, it isn't prudent to believe. Should some remote village in Ireland suddenly announce they do, in fact, have Leprechauns and others begin going there and verifying the claim, I am willing to reconsider.

Sounds like a very old meaning. When I say: "what compelled you to vote for Candidate X"? It doesn't mean someone threatened you to vote for that person or you lost your free-will to vote on your own. ~:)

Come now young master, you really should apply yourself some. This is basic fare. Check a few dictionaries, if the one I linked isn't up to snuff. The standard thrust of compel: is force.

It's more of a common sense really. The ideas themselves I don't reject per se (technically).

I see common sense is the guide not an actual proof.

Pindar

07-09-2005, 23:05

Whose revelation?

This is not an appeal to authority, but direct experience.

Pindar

07-09-2005, 23:20

How do you prove the Leprechauns' non-existence?

You don't. As I have repeated ad nauseum: it is impossible to prove a negative.

Anything that weighs over 130 lbs is heavy
I weigh 140 lbs
Hence I am heavy.

This is only applicable on Earth. On the Moon? In Space, the proof doesn't fly. That's why it has to be universally accepted. 'Meaning' doesn't fly either.

Meaning is a human construct. It is a function of the human brain. Weigh is the function of gravity which is the function of mass and distance of two masses.

That 'Meaning' proof encompasses the whole universe and then some (metaphysical dimension). That's why the proof doesn't work. ~:)

You continue to want to argue facts (or your understanding of them). This is not relevant. Logic is not concerned with facts. Logic is not concerned with reality. Logic is concerned with what must be, given what is provided. I suggest you go a buy a basic book on logic. It will do wonders for your thinking skills.

* our hero turns to the camera: "I feel like the photographer trying to explain to the tribesman the picture has not stolen his soul".

Hurin_Rules

07-09-2005, 23:21

This is not an appeal to authority, but direct experience.

If so, it should be subject to empirical investigation.

Pindar

07-09-2005, 23:48

If so, it should be subject to empirical investigation.

Maybe. What's the empirical criteria for studying God? If that isn't possible then one side of the dynamic is missing.

What is the empirical criteria of studying the recipient of revelation? If revelation is a direct communiqué with the person's soul, what's the investigative mechanism?

Experience is typically a closed system. If someone claims to have seen a giant walrus: they either did or they didn't. The hearer of the tale has nothing to go by save the report. Now they may try and repeat the same things the source did i.e. go the frozen North looking for giant walruses, but outside of a similar direct experience there is a gap. This becomes all the more apparent if there is some chronological distance.

Quietus

07-10-2005, 00:11

The point of logic is to provide necessity and objectivity which can then serve as the blueprint for building a understanding of truth. It doesn't mean the proof won't hold. The proof doesn't hold.

Science deals with the physical. It cannot speak to issues that are outside that standard. For example science cannot prove logic exists thought it depends on it to operate. The standard here is conceptual at best.

Yes, holy writ operates off of revelation. Revelation is asymmetric. This means it is a one way affair: God has complete access to man, but man cannot breach the Gates of Heaven by his own power. Man's senses are limited to the physical world. Hence God sending signals meant, albeit asymmetrical -as you've worded it-, the signal must be physical. Therefore, you precluding science (which is physical) is contradictory.

Where did I say this? You said Metaphysics cannot be touched by science. Measurement is a scientific method.

Alas, you need to do a little more thinking on this. Both are ideas. It remains that metaphysics cannot be represented as real, while circles and numbers can be. ~:cool:

Metaphysics is conceptual. It isn't really a theory. It's basis depends on one's attitudes toward rationality. What makes metaphysics rationale?

I have experienced God, I haven't experienced Leprechauns. A more general answer is that Leprechauns are creatures in the world, God is not. Now, since I don't have any experience with Leprechauns and no one is really claiming they are about, it isn't prudent to believe. Should some remote village in Ireland suddenly announce they do, in fact, have Leprechauns and others begin going there and verifying the claim, I am willing to reconsider. In short you're saying you don't believe in Leprechauns because there are no proof they exist. ~:)

Come now young master, you really should apply yourself some. This is basic fare. Check a few dictionaries, if the one I linked isn't up to snuff. The standard thrust of the compel: is force. Words do change according to time. The way 'compel' is used today doesn't have or carry the connotations of 'loss of free will".

I see common sense is the guide not an actual proof. I agree it is a guide. I'm saying it's not dogmatic, as you've worded it, it is common sense as I deem it.

You don't. As I have repeated ad nauseum: it is impossible to prove a negative. Then it is impossible for you to prove Leprechauns do not exist. Yet, you don't believe in Leprechauns.

Disbelief in Leprechauns mean disbelief they don't exist
You disbelieve in Leprechauns
Hence, you believe do not exist.

And yet you say it is impossible to prove a negative. You are contradicting yourself. ~:)

You continue to want to argue facts (or your understanding of them). This is not relevant. Logic is not concerned with facts. Logic is not concerned with reality. Logic is concerned with what must be, given what is provided. I suggest you go a buy a basic book on logic. It will do wonders for your thinking skills. You have to include gravity in that proof. It's like saying 181 degrees is the sum of internal angles of a triangle (it's not true). It's very specific and you do not wish to address this.

* our hero turns to the camera: "I feel like the photographer trying to explain to the tribesman the picture as not stolen his soul". Our hero skirts the problem. It's very unheroic ~;).

Big_John

07-10-2005, 02:26

Following the insight of Parmenides that: "something cannot arise from nothing" and that the origins of the phenomenal world could not be itself as that would beg the question: a more fundamental state of being was required as source. This type of approach pointed to metaphysics: the realm of necessity.ok, that answers the question. but i don't quite see the validity of parmenides' resolution. "something cannot arise from nothing" is thermodynamically sound, sure (QM says otherwise, but let's not go there). however, that thermodynamical considerations necessarily imply metaphysical states doesn't really speak to the nature of those states in any way, does it? also, doesn't this notion disregard the possibility that the phenomenal world has always existed?

following parmenides' train of thought, shouldn't there be an infinite regression of metaphysical states? if so, in which do deities reside? do deities have deities? could philosophical enquiries from this dimension penetrate beyond a couple of nested metaphysical states with any clarity? i feel hofstadter sneaking up on me... ~:(

It remains that metaphysics cannot be represented as real, while circles and numbers can be.is there something to this? concepts like shapes and numbers have correspondences in the phenomenological world. does a concept of metaphysics? if not, is metaphysics in a special conceptual class? are there other concepts in that class as well?

Then it is impossible for you to prove Leprechauns do not exist. Yet, you don't believe in Leprechauns.

Disbelief in Leprechauns mean disbelief they don't exist
You disbelieve in Leprechauns
Hence, you believe do not exist.

And yet you say it is impossible to prove a negative. You are contradicting yourself.you're missing it quietus. to believe in a negative is not the same thing as not believing in a positive. another way of thinking about this: to say you do not believe in A simply means that you are not sure of A's existence. if A = God, this is weak, or negative atheism. to say you disbelieve in A means you are sure that A does not exist. if A = god, this is strong or positive atheism. hmm, it's hard to make the distinction any more clear.

the apparent logical problem with positive atheism is that it is not possible, logically, to prove a negative. however, does this assume that god is a logically possible thing to begin with? for example, i wonder if it can be logically proven that B does not exist if B is defined as:

B is a man that is 6 feet tall, and B is a man that is 4 feet tall.

Quietus

07-10-2005, 04:06

is there something to this? concepts like shapes and numbers have correspondences in the phenomenological world. does a concept of metaphysics? if not, is metaphysics in a special conceptual class? are there other concepts in that class as well? Not at all. Metaphysics is purely imaginary. ~:)

I can start a religion called Leprechaun Enlightenment and two thousand years from now how do you determine it is real or not real without any proof I made it up?

you're missing it quietus. to believe in a negative is not the same thing as not believing in a positive. another way of thinking about this: to say you do not believe in A simply means that you are not sure of A's existence. if A = God, this is weak, or negative atheism. to say you disbelieve in A means you are sure that A does not exist. if A = god, this is strong or positive atheism. hmm, it's hard to make the distinction any more clear.

the apparent logical problem with positive atheism is that it is not possible, logically, to prove a negative. however, does this assume that god is a logically possible thing to begin with? for example, i wonder if it can be logically proven that B does not exist if B is defined as:

B is a man that is 6 feet tall, and B is a man that is 4 feet tall. Ok. Do you believe in Leprechauns? If your answer is "No", then using Pindar's proof:

Disbelief in Leprechauns mean you believe they don't exist (true?)
You disbelieve in Leprechauns (true?)
Hence, you believe they do not exist. (true?)

By this, you're saying Leprechauns do not exist. A 'negative proof'. What about 'god'? ~:)

There are no proof of God. There are no proof of Leprechauns.
You can't disprove God and you can disprove Leprechauns either.

Yet, you do not believe in Leprechauns and believe in 'god' at the same time.

Pindar

07-10-2005, 07:09

Me:
The point of logic is to provide necessity and objectivity which can then serve as the blueprint for building a understanding of truth.

It doesn't mean the proof won't hold. The proof doesn't hold.

Me: Science deals with the physical. It cannot speak to issues that are outside that standard. For example science cannot prove logic exists thought it depends on it to operate.

The standard here is conceptual at best.

Neither of the above replies actually respond to what I posted.

Man's senses are limited to the physical world. Hence God sending signals meant, albeit asymmetrical -as you've worded it-, the signal must be physical. Therefore, you precluding science (which is physical) is contradictory.

The scope of revelation is theologically specific for example a system that admits that men have soul's doesn't have to appeal beyond the soul. More importantly: sense and understanding are not the same,

You said Metaphysics cannot be touched by science. Measurement is a scientific method.

So I didn't say: "You can't measure metaphysics" it appears.

It remains that metaphysics cannot be represented as real, while circles and numbers can be.

Since number and geometric shapes are metaphysical this statement seems flawed.

What makes metaphysics rationale?

Logic

In short you're saying you don't believe in Leprechauns because there are no proof they exist.

None that I know of, but I haven't been to Ireland.

Words do change according to time. The way 'compel' is used today doesn't have or carry the connotations of 'loss of free will".

I see you didn't do your homework. Don't address this again until you have referenced 5 dictionaries. Now, off you go.

I agree it is a guide...it is common sense as I deem it.

So common sense is the commonly held view?

Then it is impossible for you to prove Leprechauns do not exist. Yet, you don't believe in Leprechauns.

Disbelief in Leprechauns mean disbelief they don't exist
You disbelieve in Leprechauns
Hence, you believe do not exist.

And yet you say it is impossible to prove a negative. You are contradicting yourself. ~:)

The above flurry doesn't really follow. An inability to prove an X doesn't exist and a subject not believing in an X are not the same. The one is a logical standard the other is a subjective stance that says nothing about reality.

Me: You continue to want to argue facts (or your understanding of them). This is not relevant. Logic is not concerned with facts. Logic is not concerned with reality. Logic is concerned with what must be, given what is provided.

You have to include gravity in that proof. It's like saying 181 degrees is the sum of internal angles of a triangle (it's not true). It's very specific and you do not wish to address this.

I don't understand what the above is supposed to be arguing. If someone tells you Chinese History only deals with things relating to China and someone objects by insisting they don't like Chinese food there is a basic disconnect. Logic is not concerned with the truth value. One last go, note the following:

1) Only Martians wear stripped pants
2) Bob wears stripped pants
3) Therefore Bob is a Martian

Now neither Martians, stripped pants or Bob have to exist for this proof to be valid. Bob not liking stripped pants, or Mars' gravity or whether Cruise's movie: War of the Worlds will be a hit is a factor.

Back to the original error: charging 'there is no proof for God so God doesn't exist' is mistaken. Logically a proof can be put forward and I did so. Why an empirical appeal is also flawed has also been explained. No, go and sin no more.

Pindar

07-10-2005, 07:40

ok, that answers the question. but i don't quite see the validity of parmenides' resolution. "something cannot arise from nothing" is thermodynamically sound, sure (QM says otherwise, but let's not go there)*
however, that thermodynamical considerations necessarily imply metaphysical states doesn't really speak to the nature of those states in any way, does it? also, doesn't this notion disregard the possibility that the phenomenal world has always existed?

The metaphysical nature of those states would be a system specific question.
Most systems do disregard an eternal phenomenal world (Aristotle would be the exception) the basic rational centering around the contingent status of the world.

*Just as an aside: QM doesn't speak to Parmenides as indeterminacy is not the same as non-existence. Further, any QM position necessarily implies an observing subject.

following parmenides' train of thought, shouldn't there be an infinite regression of metaphysical states? if so, in which do deities reside? do deities have deities? could philosophical enquiries from this dimension penetrate beyond a couple of nested metaphysical states with any clarity? i feel hofstadter sneaking up on me...

This is again system specific. Neo-Platonic thought admitted a demiurge and in some forms a vast array of intermediary beings leading up the order of being ultimately to the One, that acted as Source. Aristotle appealed to a single residing Absolute, an Unmoved Mover that acted as the necessity and necessary telos for being.

I'll try and keep Hofstadter at bay. ~;)

Quietus

07-10-2005, 09:14

Neither of the above replies actually respond to what I posted. I've repeatedly said it but read on all of the below statements .

The scope of revelation is theologically specific for example a system that admits that men have soul's doesn't have to appeal beyond the soul. More importantly: sense and understanding are not the same, Under the over-quick and unduly assumption that the Revelation is true.

I can make my own religion and there's no way you can question it either.

So I didn't say: "You can't measure metaphysics" it appears. If Science can't touch the Metaphysical world and measurement is a scientific method, it is implicated you did ( I take it you don't fancy stating the obvious that's why you like to imply).

Since number and geometric shapes are metaphysical this statement seems flawed. Apparently you can't exclude science from investigating metaphysics after all. You've said Metaphysics is outside of scientific standards. Numbers and Geometric shapes aren't outside of scientific standards.

Logic You really have to define the word metaphysics. You're saying 'Metaphysics' cannot be empirically derived yet you're saying Numbers and Geometric shape are metaphysical.

None that I know of, but I haven't been to Ireland. You have never seen god's home either, yet you believe in him.

I see you didn't do your homework. Don't address this again until you have referenced 5 dictionaries. Now, off you go. Here's a better proposition: go to www.google.com and go to "news" and google the word 'compel' and/or 'compelling'. See how people use the word if it connotes 'loss of free will'. (Note: I have never googled 'compel' before, just to be fair). ~:)

So common sense is the commonly held view? More often than not I'd say.

The above flurry doesn't really follow. An inability to prove an X doesn't exist and a subject not believing in an X are not the same. The one is a logical standard the other is a subjective stance that says nothing about reality. Now you know why I do not agree with your 'meaning' proof. I just it turned around for you.

Same as the 'meaning' is subjective like I've said. That's double standard.

"Disbelief in Leprechauns mean disbelief (typo, read: belief) they don't exist
You disbelieve in Leprechauns
Hence, you believe (typo, add: they) do not exist."

That's the same proof you've posted.

Do you believe that leprechauns exist? (you said no)
Why? (basically: no proof).
You've contradicted yourself. Again:

What makes you believe that Leprechauns do not exist?
No proof, no god, No proof, no Leprechauns. that's exactly the same thing you are saying.

I don't understand what the above is supposed to be arguing. If someone tells you Chinese History only deals with things relating to China and someone objects by insisting they don't like Chinese food there is a basic disconnect. Logic is not concerned with the truth value. One last go, note the following:

1) Only Martians wear stripped pants
2) Bob wears stripped pants
3) Therefore Bob is a Martian

Now neither Martians, stripped pants or Bob have to exist for this proof to be valid. Bob not liking stripped pants, or Mars' gravity or whether Cruise's movie: War of the Worlds will be a hit is a factor. You've avoided it once again. I'll pattern it to your proof above.

1) only the weight above 130 lbs. is heavy.
2) I weigh 140 lbs.
3) Hence, I'm heavy.

Is this proof true in the whole universe? TRUE in the moon? You are heavy on earth. Are you heavy on the moon? If the proof encompasses the universe it has to be universally palpable. Your proof encompasses the whole universe, but is it true in the whole universe?

The 'meaning' you speak of, is not universally accepted. Weight is not universally accepted either.

Back to the original error: charging 'there is no proof for God so God doesn't exist' is mistaken. Logically a proof can be put forward and I did so. Why an empirical appeal is also flawed has also been explained. No, go and sin no more.

That's one of the reasons but not the only reason.

Secondly, there's no proof for Leprechauns that's why they don't exist, that's what you said correct?

You cannot prove or disprove god. Yet you believe in god.
You cannot prove or disprove leprechauns. Yet you don't believe in Leprechauns.

Where does the difference lie?

I have experienced God, I haven't experienced Leprechauns Experience to you is proof. Hence, no experience is no proof. Correct? Then you don't believe in leprechauns because there's no proof.

No, go and sin no more. If this is a religious appeal, then it's not applicable to me. ~:cool:

Pindar

07-10-2005, 17:19

Hurin_Rules

07-10-2005, 21:05

Maybe. What's the empirical criteria for studying God? If that isn't possible then one side of the dynamic is missing.

What is the empirical criteria of studying the recipient of revelation? If revelation is a direct communiqué with the person's soul, what's the investigative mechanism?

Experience is typically a closed system. If someone claims to have seen a giant walrus: they either did or they didn't. The hearer of the tale has nothing to go by save the report. Now they may try and repeat the same things the source did i.e. go the frozen North looking for giant walruses, but outside of a similar direct experience there is a gap. This becomes all the more apparent if there is some chronological distance.

If you had and continue to have religious experiences, these can be analyzed just like any other experiences. We can compare your brainwave patterns to those of others, and see what experiences this would be similar to, for example. We can analyze brain chemistry before and after the experiences. We can see if drugs have any affect on them. etc. etc.

Unless you are saying that the mental is a mere ephenomenon of the physical (or vice versa), then experience--your basis for your belief in god-- breaks the hemeneutical circle and renders your argumentation subject to empirical analysis.

I would also reiterate Quietus' comments. If metaphysics is not derived from our experience of natural phenomena, whence does it arise? The dichotomy you are trying do construct between them does not bear serious scrutiny.

Quietus

07-10-2005, 22:02

Quietus,

There is a reference in Brothers Karamazov where Russian students are considered unique in that they combine absolute arrogance with total ignorance. The example is then given: if an Astronomer handed a map of the solar system to a Russian student, the student would return the map with corrections on it.

You have continued to engage on a subject matter that you are clearly unfamiliar. Your comments on basic logic are incoherent. References to truth, superlatives, or universal agreement are not relevant. It isn't prudent to spar on subject matter you have never studied. It isn't prudent to refuse to recognize the meaning of a word in the face of direct evidence. Both approaches suggest an attitude that prohibits productive discussion which is unfortunate. I can do nothing further for you. I must leave you to your dogma. Alas.

One last parting shot, before our hero leaves:

Using your proof:

It doesn't exist if there's no proof
There's no proof of god
Hence it doesn't exist

Logical or subjective? That's why your proof methods do not work.

It isn't prudent to refuse to recognize the meaning of a word in the face of direct evidence. Both approaches suggest an attitude that prohibits productive discussion which is unfortunate. People make the words by the use of it. Not the other way around Pindar. ~:) I've used the word 'compel' as people use it today. I've made a very fair proposition up there. Google it on the 'news' section and see how people use it today if it connotes 'loss of free will' as you've stated.

What compelled you to vote for Candidate X?
I'm reading a compelling book.

You didn't lose your 'free will' by reading the book or voting for Candidate X.

Big_John

07-11-2005, 07:14

Hurin_Rules

07-11-2005, 16:41

i don't think this is necessarily true. your examples assume that metaphysical input into the physical world is governed by physical law, which need not be true, as far as i can see.

Hence, my qualifier about 'epiphenomena'.

Pindar

07-11-2005, 17:37

If you had and continue to have religious experiences, these can be analyzed just like any other experiences. We can compare your brainwave patterns to those of others, and see what experiences this would be similar to, for example. We can analyze brain chemistry before and after the experiences. We can see if drugs have any affect on them. etc. etc.

Unless you are saying that the mental is a mere ephenomenon of the physical (or vice versa), then experience--your basis for your belief in god-- breaks the hemeneutical circle and renders your argumentation subject to empirical analysis.

I don't know what ephenomenon means.

As I said, maybe.

As I also mentioned: there is no standard for examining one side of the dynamic: God, and given experience is relational this seems a problem. There doesn't seem to be a verification schema for the subject either, meaning: 1), if say a brain wave analysis was given at the time of a revelation and some spike registered, how does one guarantee that the spike equals a Divine communique? 2) if the experience is "metaphysically contained" then no physical register would occur. For example, in the Book of Acts, Stephen while standing before the Sanhedrin declares he can see God sitting on His throne with the Lord standing to His right. Now the Sanhedrin, who would moments later have him killed, could see nothing. This would suggest something 'not normal' occurred, if it occurred. If revelation is an opening of the soul to a higher order then standard empirical appeal is not helpful.

I would also reiterate Quietus' comments. If metaphysics is not derived from our experience of natural phenomena, whence does it arise? The dichotomy you are trying do construct between them does not bear serious scrutiny.

This is an amazing statement. You have just eviscerated over 2500 years of the Western Intellectual Tradition. Given that no one has ever constructed a full system of being without metaphysical appeal, perhaps a little less the chevalier would be in order.

Hurin_Rules

07-11-2005, 17:47

I don't know what ephenomenon means.

Spelling error, corrected in my last post above: read, 'epiphenomenon'.

As I said, maybe.

Then maybe your entire argument has just collaped.

As I also mentioned: there is no standard for examining one side of the dynamic: God, and given experience is relational this seems a problem. There doesn't seem to be a verification schema for the subject either, meaning: 1), if say a brain wave analysis was given at the time of a revelation and some spike registered, how does one guarantee that the spike equals a Divine communique?

Begging the question, no? Is it not logical to assume that the spike is quite the opposite, a natural phenomenon rather than a Divine communique? If we can give it a natural explanation, why invoke God? Why multiply entities beyond necessity, as Occam asked?

2) if the experience is "metaphysically contained" then no physical register would occur. For example, in the Book of Acts, Stephen while standing before the Sanhedrin declares he can see God sitting on His throne with the Lord standing to His right. Now the Sanhedrin, who would moments later have him killed, could see nothing. This would suggest something 'not normal' occurred, if it occurred. If revelation is an opening of the soul to a higher order then standard empirical appeal is not helpful.

Again, multiplying entities beyond necessity. Why assume it is 'not normal' or not empirical at all? You've already assumed your conclusion here.

This is an amazing statement. You have just eviscerated over 2500 years of the Western Intellectual Tradition. Given that no one has ever constructed a full system of being without metaphysical appeal, perhaps a little less the chevalier would be in order.

And perhaps you could reciprocate with a little less blind faith in your authorities. No offense, but the third-hand accounts of ecstatic visions from 2,000 years ago should be treated with some skepticism. Moreover, the Western Intellectual Tradition has for millenia also sanctioned a host of propostions later proved morally bankrupt or simply and demonstrably incorrect, from a geocentric cosmology and the institution of slavery. An appeal to authority is not an argument, but a cop out.

Pindar

07-11-2005, 18:20

Pindar... is "something cannot arise from nothing" a tacit assumption used by all western philosophy? i mean, are there any philosophers that have tried to examine/undermine the foundation of that contention (please answer in as least-jargonized terminology as you can muster ~;))?

The position was not taken as a tacit assumption. It was accepted by the Greeks (and those who followed) based on standard notions of cause. Parmenides recognized being exists: there is a something here and now. If one argues this 'is' was at some point 'not', then the question arises: what is/was its source? If one argues 'nothing' or a null set is causal, then one is either simply asserting (which means there is no rational appeal, like spontaneous generation) or there must be some X that acts in the causal capacity. That X would undercut the nothing claim. Therefore being must always already be, even if not always in the same form.

This position stands at the beginnings of the rational tradition. Post-Modernism is focused on the basis of intellectual systems, but I don't know of any counters to this view.

Personal note: I think this understanding is one of the reasons Buddhism when it was in its evangelical phase didn't successfully expand into the West while it did in the Far East where there was no strong metaphysical tradition. Buddhism never developed a coherent theory of being and thus couldn't respond to Greek counter.

also, if you can share, what information did your revelation convey to you? or at least what sort of information?

No, I don't think so. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet. Matt. 7:6

Not that there is anything wrong with being swine mind you. ~:grouphug:

Pindar

07-11-2005, 18:59

Spelling error, corrected in my last post above: read, 'epiphenomenon'.

Ahh, I see.

Then maybe your entire argument has just collaped.

How so?

Begging the question, no? Is it not logical to assume that the spike is quite the opposite, a natural phenomenon rather than a Divine communique? If we can give it a natural explanation, why invoke God? Why multiply entities beyond necessity, as Occam asked?

When making a knowledge claim the point is to avoid assuming. A spike may very well simply be a natural phenomenon, but there is no definitive accounting. If there is some subject P who claims Divine providence and while receiving Heavenly instruction registers a brain spike the question would be: what caused the spike? P may claim the revelation, but probably isn't concerned whether there is any brain spike or not. Is P wrong? How is the determination made? Maybe the spike also shows increased heart rate or some other physical condition. Are these attendant to the spike or are they prior conditions. Do these speak to the content of the claimed experience? I don't know how this would be nailed down.

Again, multiplying entities beyond necessity. Why assume it is 'not normal' or not empirical at all? You've already assumed your conclusion here.

I've made no assumption: note the conditionals.

And perhaps you could reciprocate with a little less blind faith in your authorities. No offense, but the third-hand accounts of ecstatic visions from 2,000 years ago should be treated with some skepticism. Moreover, the Western Intellectual Tradition has for millenia also sanctioned a host of propostions later proved morally bankrupt or simply and demonstrably incorrect, from a geocentric cosmology and the institution of slavery. An appeal to authority is not an argument, but a cop out.

I don't know what you mean by blind faith. Every philosophical system ever produced has made metaphysical appeal. This is true of Plato, Aristotle, Xeno, Lucretius, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel etc. just to mention a few. Now they all might be wrong, but it is an error to assume there were not compelling reasons for their taking the stand they did. Each respective system lays these reasons out. These same points continue to be areas of discussion in mathematics, theoretical physics etc. as well as philosophy proper.

There is no appeal to authority: simply the shock to see a casual dismissal of the entire rational tradition.

You may also want to note that simple materialism is not some novel idea. In philosophical parlance is called 'naive realism' and the implosive character of the appeal is well noted.

Big_John

07-11-2005, 19:24

No, I don't think so. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet. Matt. 7:6 lame. :undecided:

Pindar

07-11-2005, 20:36

lame. :undecided:

Didn't like that answer, sorry. :bow:

But, for a more sober reply: no, I don't think this is the appropriate venue for such fare.

bmolsson

07-12-2005, 02:46

no, I don't think this is the appropriate venue for such fare.

Pindar, have a little faith...... ~:grouphug:

Hurin_Rules

07-12-2005, 04:32

Quietus

07-12-2005, 08:07

Out of the billions of religious practitioners. Could at least a single entity share the message this 'god' is personally sending them? ~:)

@Big John: The message must be physical since it is happening in this universe. For the lack of a better analogy:

Pindar is supposing God speaks Latin ('metaphysical'). Humans speak English (physical). And the message allegedly can only come God to human (but not the other way around) and Humans do not speak or understand Latin.

I'm saying that since Humans only speak English. God's message must be in English too not Latin.

That's why all this is extremely doubtful to us. ~:)

bmolsson

07-12-2005, 08:42

The whole issue is the base of reference. Maybe God isn't God at all, but another race, keeping away from all the nutjobs that keeps on praying for their help..... ~;)

Big_John

07-12-2005, 10:11

@Big John: The message must be physical since it is happening in this universe. For the lack of a better analogy:

Pindar is supposing God speaks Latin ('metaphysical'). Humans speak English (physical). And the message allegedly can only come God to human (but not the other way around) and Humans do not speak or understand Latin.

I'm saying that since Humans only speak English. God's message must be in English too not Latin.

That's why all this is extremely doubtful to us. ~:)don't be fooled. i have, as yet, found no reason to abandon my personal agnostic/weak atheistic stance. but you're supposing to know too much about the rules that govern metaphysical/physical interaction. indeed, i can't see how one can claim to know anything about that interaction. unless, of course, one either rejects metaphysics as absurd (however, no one in this thread has presented a strong case for doing so, as of yet) or claims to have perception of the metaphysical (e.g. revelations). your analogy not only accepts a metaphysical realm, but attempts to abstract it's properties. what is your foundation for this? have you had a revelation too? :shocked:

does this mean one should accept Pindar's account? of course not. he could be as batty as a belfry for all we know. but can you logically reject the possibility of it? i haven't seen anyone do it yet. however, rejecting the metaphysical as absurd (e.g. by asserting that 'something can indeed arise from nothing') is one starting point, i think.

perhaps you mean to ask why an interaction between metaphysical and physical realms, in either direction, should be possible at all. that's a good question that i can't answer. revelation would seem to presuppose "souls"; i have never seen a compelling (~;)) justification for the existence of souls. also, it seems like the underlying idea behind Pindar's claim that "Revelation is asymmetric" would reject the possibility of reciprocated prayer and the claim (of others) that a person can "converse" with god. i think exploring these questions may be a way to undermine the claim of revelation, if that's what you are trying to do.

btw, this was really funny:
Pindar, have a little faith...... ~:grouphug:~:cheers:

Pindar

07-12-2005, 16:31

Well, the discussion is more or less at an end if you can't give us that. It is indeed the lynchpin of your entire belief in God and the basis of all the arguments you have presented here; if it is out of bounds, we can't reach any further conclusions regarding your ideas. It's your prerogative, of course, and I am not asking you to reveal it.

Experience (of which revelation is one variety) as I mentioned is a closed system. This means there is no proof outside of a repetition of the experience. If someone claimed to have seen a giant walrus while traveling in the Artic one can either accept the claim or reject it, but the claim itself isn't definitive to a non-participant. The same applies to any religious experience. If someone claims a religious experience (me) or Moses comes down off the mountain, regardless what they say about the affair it does not constitute knowledge for the hearer unless they choose to believe which even then is still a belief.

The question then should be whether verification is possible. The best answer might be the Buddha's: "I can only point my finger. You must look to the moon yourself."

Pindar

07-12-2005, 16:48

... also, it seems like the underlying idea behind Pindar's claim that "Revelation is asymmetric" would reject the possibility of reciprocated prayer and the claim (of others) that a person can "converse" with god. i think exploring these questions may be a way to undermine the claim of revelation, if that's what you are trying to do.

I would define revelation as any direct contact with Divinity. Reciprocated prayer or actual conversation with Deity would fall under that standard. Whereas prayer that isn't reciprocated couldn't constitute a knowledge claim. Simply put: if one calls someone, unless they answer the phone, its tough to say they are home. They might call you, but in each instance the key element is the communication from the other.

Hurin_Rules

07-12-2005, 17:00

and Humans do not speak or understand Latin.

Some of us still do.

Perhaps, to make us both happy and allow us to continue the thread, God could just send Pindar's messages to me, and I could translate them for him.

:bow:

Big_John

07-12-2005, 18:36

I would define revelation as any direct contact with Divinity. Reciprocated prayer or actual conversation with Deity would fall under that standard. Whereas prayer that isn't reciprocated couldn't constitute a knowledge claim. Simply put: if one calls someone, unless they answer the phone, its tough to say they are home. They might call you, but in each instance the key element is the communication from the other.

oh ok, so information can flow in either direction, but contact must be initiated from the metaphysical realm. of course, the act of "calling" regardless of whether the "phone" is answered is a type of information transfer, seemingly breaking through the "gates of heaven". i guess that's an artifact of the analogy, though.

Pindar

07-12-2005, 20:22

Perhaps, to make us both happy and allow us to continue the thread, God could just send Pindar's messages to me, and I could translate them for him.

But you're Canadian
:thinking2:

Pindar

07-12-2005, 20:46

oh ok, so information can flow in either direction, but contact must be initiated from the metaphysical realm. of course, the acting of "calling" regardless of whether the "phone" is answered is a type of information transfer, seemingly breaking through the "gates of heaven". i guess that's an artifact of the analogy, though.

Access to the metaphysical realm is system specific. For example: for Plato some forms are cognitively accessible. Mathematics would illustrate the point. Others, who follow this same vein, would argue that anything we attribute being to that is not phenomenally accessible would fall under the metaphysical guise: quarks for example. As far as theistic systems go: it seems all recognize an intentional gap between creature and Creator. The reasons for this would again depend on the cult. While one may be able to call over the wall or through the gate: the gate only opens from the inside. The sacred and profane remain divided.

One cannot build his tower to Heaven any more than he can mount Pegasus and fly there.

Hurin_Rules

07-12-2005, 21:17

Pindar

07-12-2005, 22:17

So essentially you are saying that the physical and metaphysical are epiphenomena. Of course, numerous philosphers have pointed out the inherent problems in positing two essentially different types of being. The problem of how they interact is a much more serious one than you are acknowledging.

No, I'm not suggesting anything is epiphenomenal as that indicates a secondary class. Note, the bulk of my comments have been focused on logical issues regarding knowledge claims, correcting Quietus on his use of 'proof' and giving Big John perspective on the historical question of metaphysics. I think its clear I'm a theist and I said I base that on religious experience, but I haven't really argued any particular sectarian position.

As far as essentially different types of being: say one material and one immaterial there are no problems in posing both exist. I think there are massive problems if one wants to argue two fundamentally different things interact. For example if one says spirit and body are completely different things: how then is the spirit (one's soul) in the body? Now different systems have different answers. For example my own tradition rejects the notion of immaterial matter. The belief is all that has being is material of one form or another. Thus a soul would be material even if it is of a more 'refined' sort. The next question would be: "Then shouldn't we then be able to measure it?" My answer, as before, is maybe, but to do so one would need to know the quality of the stuff to be measured and the proper instramentation.

Hurin_Rules

07-13-2005, 03:10

But you're Canadian
:thinking2:

Ah, I see you're point: I'm already divine. :angel:

Quietus

07-13-2005, 10:04

don't be fooled. i have, as yet, found no reason to abandon my personal agnostic/weak atheistic stance. but you're supposing to know too much about the rules that govern metaphysical/physical interaction. First of all, 'metaphysics' in the argument for me is a supposition. Secondly, it was induction. Here's a slightly better analogy:

Let's say if Mac computer only uses Mac software, then If you use a Macintosh computer, you use Macintosh software correct? Man only uses the physical world, nothing more nothing less.

Your body is a machine just as any other machine. It's made of little machines called cells.

What your cells can't do, tissues do.
What your tissues can't do, organs do.
What your organs can't do, your organ systems do.
What your organ systems can't do you do as a person. (eg. feeding/mating/moving away from predators or direct heat from the sun etc..)
What you can't do as a person alone, society does (eg. Government/Laws/Cities/Technology/Schools/Religion/Culture etc...).

See the pattern? It's evolution. Society is part of evolution. And even on the social level, it's still physical. We've simply eclipsed how fast our bodies evolve. So instead of hairs, we prefer clothes, for example.

indeed, i can't see how one can claim to know anything about that interaction. unless, of course, one either rejects metaphysics as absurd (however, no one in this thread has presented a strong case for doing so, as of yet) or claims to have perception of the metaphysical (e.g. revelations). your analogy not only accepts a metaphysical realm, but attempts to abstract it's properties. what is your foundation for this? have you had a revelation too? :shocked: I accept 'metaphysics' in the argument as a supposition. To me it is still not real. ~:)

does this mean one should accept Pindar's account? of course not. he could be as batty as a belfry for all we know. but can you logically reject the possibility of it? i haven't seen anyone do it yet. I still stand my argument that if there's no proof/support/evidence it then it doesn't exist. It's the best approach if you ask me. ( BTW, apparently, to a website I incidentally came across, the term for this is strong atheist or positive atheism

however, rejecting the metaphysical as absurd (e.g. by asserting that 'something can indeed arise from nothing') is one starting point, i think. Worse than this is assuming a whole system with no basis. ~:) The universe is weird anyway. Some examples being: light having constant speed and dual nature of photon: having both characteristics of a wave and a particle.

Also, if the universe originated from a 'god', where did this 'god' originate from?

perhaps you mean to ask why an interaction between metaphysical and physical realms, in either direction, should be possible at all. that's a good question that i can't answer. revelation would seem to presuppose "souls"; i have never seen a compelling (~;)) justification for the existence of souls. ~D Yes. There has a to be a verifiable foundation, before you start believing it. Metaphysics and Physics interfacing doesn't make sense.

Your physical body responds to and relies entirely on the physical world, that's it. Assuming a 'metaphysics' is acting on it is completely baseless and groundless.

also, it seems like the underlying idea behind Pindar's claim that "Revelation is asymmetric" would reject the possibility of reciprocated prayer and the claim (of others) that a person can "converse" with god. i think exploring these questions may be a way to undermine the claim of revelation, if that's what you are trying to do. Ask any other believers who claimed being visited, if they are willing to share. ~:)

btw, this was really funny:~:cheers: ~:cool:

Some of us still do. Yeah, I was just 'supposing' that Humans aren't supposed to speak Latin. For the lack of a better analogy, I used language as the medium. :balloon2: