Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 209

Thread: Cult or Religion

  1. #121
    Chief Sniffer Senior Member ichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,132

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by bmolsson
    Why is this logical ?
    Because if God isn't perfect, then he/she/it/they/whatever isn't God, simply a higher being.

    ichi
    Stay Calm, Be Alert, Think Clearly, Act Decisively

    CoH

  2. #122
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
    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.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  3. #123
    Don't worry, I don't exist Member King of Atlantis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ruins of Atlantis a.k.a Florida
    Posts
    1,658

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    This argument is getting technical .

  4. #124
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Roark

    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.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  5. #125
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
    This argument is getting technical .
    Sorry.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  6. #126
    Don't worry, I don't exist Member King of Atlantis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ruins of Atlantis a.k.a Florida
    Posts
    1,658

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
    Sorry.
    nothing to be sorry about.

  7. #127
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
    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.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  8. #128
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
    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.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  9. #129
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    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.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  10. #130
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
    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.
    This is not a discussion of system specific functions.

    As I mentioned earlier, we're talking about concepts. Define square-circle.
    Last edited by Pindar; 07-07-2005 at 09:59.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  11. #131
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    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.
    Last edited by Hurin_Rules; 07-07-2005 at 17:30.
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

  12. #132
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
    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.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  13. #133
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
    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?
    Last edited by Hurin_Rules; 07-07-2005 at 20:22.
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

  14. #134
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
    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.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  15. #135
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

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

    Therefore logic is not reality.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  16. #136

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
    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.

  17. #137
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
    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.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  18. #138
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Quietus
    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.
    Last edited by Pindar; 07-07-2005 at 23:46.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  19. #139
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
    Actually metaphysics isn't tied to religion. That is historically incorrect.
    Certainly it is. One need only read Plato.
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

  20. #140
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
    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.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  21. #141
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
    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.
    Last edited by Hurin_Rules; 07-08-2005 at 04:48.
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

  22. #142
    Member Member bmolsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    3,029

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
    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.......

    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......

  23. #143

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
    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 . '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.

  24. #144
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
    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.
    Last edited by Pindar; 07-08-2005 at 22:18.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  25. #145
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by bmolsson
    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.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  26. #146
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Quietus
    '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 . '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



    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.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  27. #147
    boy of DESTINY Senior Member Big_John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    OB
    Posts
    3,752

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally 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?
    now i'm here, and history is vindicated.

  28. #148
    Master of the Horse Senior Member Pindar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The base of Yggdrasil
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Big_John
    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.
    Last edited by Pindar; 07-09-2005 at 06:56.

    "We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides

    "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides

  29. #149
    boy of DESTINY Senior Member Big_John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    OB
    Posts
    3,752

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    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.
    Last edited by Big_John; 07-09-2005 at 08:02.
    now i'm here, and history is vindicated.

  30. #150

    Default Re: Cult or Religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Pindar
    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.



    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.

    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
    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.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO