Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Protests over a cartoon... wtf.
( ) 3 Votes
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201070 is a reply to message #188804] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 10:42   |
|
|
I don't go around telling others that what I believe in is truth. You should probably listen to yourself, as well. You shouldn't be telling me that my thoughts are illogical when you have no proof that they are. Just because YOU believe that they are, doesn't make you right. The same goes for me, as you said.
God existing is just as likely as Him not existing. It's a 50/50 chance. Not 99/1, not 80/20. Either He does or doesn't exist.
It IS logical for us to have faith in things. You believe in material things all the time. The only difference is that what I have faith in is spiritual and cannot be seen, felt, or smelled.
----------------------
Faith is all I need. In my mind, I'm quite sure of God's existance. Whether or not you believe in it.
----------------------
I believe that God exists because of the world around me. I look at the beauty, the intricacy, and I see God. I don't see how any of this could have just spontaneously generated. It's far too complicated to have just came from nowhere. At least, that's my opinion. If you place all the components of a watch next to each other, they're not going to come together and form the watch. Not even if you added heat, pressure, or seismic activity. It's just not going to happen.
How is it more likely than pink unicorns existing? I can't, nor can you... same with God. God cannot be disproven. I'm also not going to discount the possibility of pink unicorns. We have no proof to say that they don't exist. Do I personally believe they do? No, but I'm not going to argue back and forth about their existance if I'm just as unsure as the people who DO believe in them.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
[Updated on: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:43] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201071 is a reply to message #201024] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 10:47 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 04:41 |
Take the intelligent away then and leave some kind of life form and answer my question.
|
You misunderstand. It doesn't have to be intelligent, it doesn't have to be unintelligent, it doesn't even have to be alive. The fact is, I don't KNOW or pretend to know what it is that probably caused the universe into being. I merely know that SOMETHING did. I choose out of preference to call it God. Don't confuse me with the anthropomorphized diety of the superstitious, because frankly I have no way of proving such a thing. So I don't try to.
| Quote: |
On the contrary. Nothing suggests a mover. Do you know a single thing that isn't moved by something else? So what does evidence suggest?
|
That there is a mover. I haven't thought of a single thing that hasn't been moved by a mover, but I also have just reason to believe that what we experience or have the POTENTIAL to experience is not the be all and end all of existence. Kant supports this, and it is explained on the link I gave you. Unfortunately, I don't have a condensed copy handy, so you'll either have to look around yourself or muddle through it. Infinite regression is still possible (although negated by contemporary physics), but it still doesn't negate the necessity for some form of transcendental causality.
| Quote: |
That's not right...the Big Bang - Big Crush theory is pretty popular among scientists. The long term past seems to coincide...tell me one thing that hasn't been affected by another.
|
Dispite my affinity toward the big bang theory, not even science can explain how it is the whole process started. Should it have progressed on infinitely, then science has just contradicted itself in its most generic form-- that infinity is an abstract and not something tangible. There is, however, absolutely no evidence suggesting that infinity actually exists in our universe.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201072 is a reply to message #201070] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 10:51 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 13:42 |
It IS logical for us to have faith in things.
|
This isn't exactly true. You might be confusing faith with belief. There IS a difference between the two, remember. Belief is a form of hopeful necessity, based on hypotheses that we unconsciously formulate and apply to our lives. Sitting on a chair and assuming it's there when you're not looking for example so you don't fall down.
Faith on the other hand, is not hopeful necessity, it's unproven necessity. I use that loosely however, because the proof can be fleeting based on how you look at it. Conjecture, heresay, "feelings" can all be forms of proof to the individual, but they're not very concrete.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201107 is a reply to message #201023] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 18:35 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 02:23 |
| warranto wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 16:37 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 13:11 |
Warranto is right. God's existance can neither be disproven not proven.
But, from a logical point of view, assuming that there is something you have no proof of whatsoever makes no sense at all.
|
Oh! Oh! The "You have no proof, therefore it does not exist" arguement. I LOVE completely obliterating this arguement!
At one point in time, no had any proof of the following:
1 Billion dollars
Anything at the molecular level
The shape of North America (or any landmass)
The "fact" that the earth orbits the sun
electricity
motor vehicles
the wheel
etc.
A bit of trivia. At one point around the end of the 19th century (or 1900's, I forget), the Scientific authority in Britian actually declared (or was about to declare) science to be obsolete as everything there was to discover, had been discovered.
|
Ouch. I thought you were a bit more clever after your first post.
I said that it doesn't make sense to assume something exists than you have no proof whatsoever for. I didn't say it doesn't exist, because that's impossible to find out. Get the difference? So yea gj obliterating something I haven't said, genius.
I'm saying that assuming that there is a planet with pink unicorns which are high on glue is nuts, because there is no proof whatsoever. I can't however say that it doesn't exist for sure. Exchange the unis with god and you get the picture.
|
What you said was that it doesn't make any sense to assume something exists, when you have no proof of it.
That's what I countered.
At one point in time, someone thought the idea of electricity might exist, and others thought that it couldn't. However, we know (at least now) that it made perfect sense to assume electricity existed, and that to assume the idea of electricity made no sense, was wrong.
At some point in time, people thought the world was flat, and one person decided to challenge that, stating that it was round. He was deemed insane, because the idea that the world was round didn't make any sense.
Assuming something is "nuts" to believe in, just because of the lack of proof, is ignorance at its finest.
The argument you make is simply a variation of the argument summary I made. It has every relevance to the problem at hand, and as such your attempt at making it irrelevant due to me arguing the "wrong thing" is null and void.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201108 is a reply to message #201072] |
Fri, 26 May 2006 18:36 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Javaxcx wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 11:51 |
| j_ball430 wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 13:42 |
It IS logical for us to have faith in things.
|
This isn't exactly true. You might be confusing faith with belief. There IS a difference between the two, remember. Belief is a form of hopeful necessity, based on hypotheses that we unconsciously formulate and apply to our lives. Sitting on a chair and assuming it's there when you're not looking for example so you don't fall down.
Faith on the other hand, is not hopeful necessity, it's unproven necessity. I use that loosely however, because the proof can be fleeting based on how you look at it. Conjecture, heresay, "feelings" can all be forms of proof to the individual, but they're not very concrete.
|
Meh, if he has trouble trusting anyone he knows, then there is nothing much we can do about it.
[Updated on: Fri, 26 May 2006 18:36] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201128 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sat, 27 May 2006 01:23 |
 |
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't go around telling others that what I believe in is truth. You should probably listen to yourself, as well. You shouldn't be telling me that my thoughts are illogical when you have no proof that they are. Just because YOU believe that they are, doesn't make you right. The same goes for me, as you said.
|
You said that you're sure that God exists and non-believers make you chuckle...
It doesn't work that way...you have to proove to me that your far-fetched idea is correct.
| Quote: |
God existing is just as likely as Him not existing. It's a 50/50 chance. Not 99/1, not 80/20. Either He does or doesn't exist.
|
That's so untrue...so you're saying there is a 50/50 chance that there are invisible pink unicorns walking on my front yard, because they either exists or don't? That's just plain wrong...how can something be unlikely then at all?
| Quote: |
I believe that God exists because of the world around me. I look at the beauty, the intricacy, and I see God. I don't see how any of this could have just spontaneously generated. It's far too complicated to have just came from nowhere. At least, that's my opinion. If you place all the components of a watch next to each other, they're not going to come together and form the watch. Not even if you added heat, pressure, or seismic activity. It's just not going to happen.
|
You think it's beautiful because people tend to need a place where they can feel happy like that...wouldn't we all commit suicide if we couldn't think of something beautiful?
| Quote: |
How is it more likely than pink unicorns existing? I can't, nor can you... same with God. God cannot be disproven. I'm also not going to discount the possibility of pink unicorns. We have no proof to say that they don't exist. Do I personally believe they do? No, but I'm not going to argue back and forth about their existance if I'm just as unsure as the people who DO believe in them
|
So you don't feel stupid about believing in something as likely as pink unicorns, since there is no evidence whatsoever for both?
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201131 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sat, 27 May 2006 01:49 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
You misunderstand. It doesn't have to be intelligent, it doesn't have to be unintelligent, it doesn't even have to be alive. The fact is, I don't KNOW or pretend to know what it is that probably caused the universe into being. I merely know that SOMETHING did. I choose out of preference to call it God. Don't confuse me with the anthropomorphized diety of the superstitious, because frankly I have no way of proving such a thing. So I don't try to.
|
Call it Big Bang then and not God. You're basically believing into something that fit with the definition of "God" and has started the universe.
| Quote: |
That there is a mover. I haven't thought of a single thing that hasn't been moved by a mover, but I also have just reason to believe that what we experience or have the POTENTIAL to experience is not the be all and end all of existence. Kant supports this, and it is explained on the link I gave you. Unfortunately, I don't have a condensed copy handy, so you'll either have to look around yourself or muddle through it. Infinite regression is still possible (although negated by contemporary physics), but it still doesn't negate the necessity for some form of transcendental causality.
|
Yes, but every mover has been moved by another mover. I don't understand why there should be a mover that can't be moved.
| Quote: |
Dispite my affinity toward the big bang theory, not even science can explain how it is the whole process started. Should it have progressed on infinitely, then science has just contradicted itself in its most generic form-- that infinity is an abstract and not something tangible. There is, however, absolutely no evidence suggesting that infinity actually exists in our universe.
|
Right now we can measure how the star systems have moved away from a center...it makes sense to me that the dark matter will slow the star systems down and ultimatly pull them back together with it's gravity, where the energy will build up again and another Big Bang occurs.
If you believe in Big Bang you will ultimatly have to believe in infinity. Believing in infinity however will tell you that there is no starting point/God. Basically, you can't believe in God and the Big Bang at the same time and since we have clues and our physics suggest that a Big Bang has occured, I will believe in the latter.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201132 is a reply to message #201107] |
Sat, 27 May 2006 01:57 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 20:35 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Fri, 26 May 2006 02:23 |
| warranto wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 16:37 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Thu, 25 May 2006 13:11 |
Warranto is right. God's existance can neither be disproven not proven.
But, from a logical point of view, assuming that there is something you have no proof of whatsoever makes no sense at all.
|
Oh! Oh! The "You have no proof, therefore it does not exist" arguement. I LOVE completely obliterating this arguement!
At one point in time, no had any proof of the following:
1 Billion dollars
Anything at the molecular level
The shape of North America (or any landmass)
The "fact" that the earth orbits the sun
electricity
motor vehicles
the wheel
etc.
A bit of trivia. At one point around the end of the 19th century (or 1900's, I forget), the Scientific authority in Britian actually declared (or was about to declare) science to be obsolete as everything there was to discover, had been discovered.
|
Ouch. I thought you were a bit more clever after your first post.
I said that it doesn't make sense to assume something exists than you have no proof whatsoever for. I didn't say it doesn't exist, because that's impossible to find out. Get the difference? So yea gj obliterating something I haven't said, genius.
I'm saying that assuming that there is a planet with pink unicorns which are high on glue is nuts, because there is no proof whatsoever. I can't however say that it doesn't exist for sure. Exchange the unis with god and you get the picture.
|
What you said was that it doesn't make any sense to assume something exists, when you have no proof of it.
That's what I countered.
At one point in time, someone thought the idea of electricity might exist, and others thought that it couldn't. However, we know (at least now) that it made perfect sense to assume electricity existed, and that to assume the idea of electricity made no sense, was wrong.
At some point in time, people thought the world was flat, and one person decided to challenge that, stating that it was round. He was deemed insane, because the idea that the world was round didn't make any sense.
Assuming something is "nuts" to believe in, just because of the lack of proof, is ignorance at its finest.
The argument you make is simply a variation of the argument summary I made. It has every relevance to the problem at hand, and as such your attempt at making it irrelevant due to me arguing the "wrong thing" is null and void.
|
First off, there is a difference between the assumption that something exists and something existing.
The people that thought electricity existed, that the world was around, that the earth moved around the sun, etc had either CLUES OR EVEN EVIDENCE that gave them the idea in the first place. Did any caveman have that idea? No, because he didn't stumble on any clues. You're doing the complete opposite...you have no clues or evidence whatsoever that God exists, but you believe in it. It's a random thought just like my pink unicorns and believing that there is any truth behind it is, yes, nuts.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201161 is a reply to message #201132] |
Sat, 27 May 2006 09:06 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 27 May 2006 02:57 |
First off, there is a difference between the assumption that something exists and something existing.
The people that thought electricity existed, that the world was around, that the earth moved around the sun, etc had either CLUES OR EVEN EVIDENCE that gave them the idea in the first place. Did any caveman have that idea? No, because he didn't stumble on any clues. You're doing the complete opposite...you have no clues or evidence whatsoever that God exists, but you believe in it. It's a random thought just like my pink unicorns and believing that there is any truth behind it is, yes, nuts.
|
There is no difference. In both instances, you are claiming that something exists. The existance of proof is irrelevant, because it is subjective to the individual choosing to believe the proof. People claim that there is proof of God's existance all the time. You just decide not to believe it. Just as people claimed they "knew" the world was round, etc. the others just chose not to believe them.
The same concept is there for the "clues or even evidence that gave them the idea in the first place". The clues that people have about God, are the religious text, and the world around them. You just happen to think that this isn't proof. Just as, I'm sure, those countering the idea of the world being round, etc. decided that the "proof" of the respecitve discoverer wasn't actual proof at all.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201163 is a reply to message #201131] |
Sat, 27 May 2006 09:14 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 27 May 2006 04:49 |
Call it Big Bang then and not God. You're basically believing into something that fit with the definition of "God" and has started the universe.
|
But it's not even remotely tied to the big bang. The evidence (and there IS evidence based on physics and the transcendental aesthetic) suggests that the unmoved mover can exist and not be corporeal. The suggestion that an unmoved mover is corporeal is a contradiction of all things about natural law. However, to suggest that there is no unmoved mover is also a contradiction of all natural law. That's why the TA is so vital in explaining all this.
| Quote: |
Yes, but every mover has been moved by another mover. I don't understand why there should be a mover that can't be moved.
|
Because it's a violation of the laws of thermodynamics and causality. You're purporting a universe where all things are the sum of their parts, however that extrapolates to contradiction when you establish a generalization for the nature of the universe. "Infinity" is not a concrete construct in our universe-- at ALL. Neither is the notion that the universe has exploded and contracted an infinite number of times.
That's interesting to note though, because you have absolutely no evidence that is any different then mine (albeit less likely then mine) for an infinite regression of causality. The irony is that regardless of infinite causality, the necessity for a mover still exists in a transcendental state.
| Quote: |
Right now we can measure how the star systems have moved away from a center...it makes sense to me that the dark matter will slow the star systems down and ultimatly pull them back together with it's gravity, where the energy will build up again and another Big Bang occurs.
|
We actually have no evidence to suggest this happens or ever happened. It's a mathematical extrapolation based on--> you guessed it, causality in the terms that I am arguing it.
| Quote: |
If you believe in Big Bang you will ultimatly have to believe in infinity. Believing in infinity however will tell you that there is no starting point/God. Basically, you can't believe in God and the Big Bang at the same time and since we have clues and our physics suggest that a Big Bang has occured, I will believe in the latter.
|
Belief in infinity in our universe is a violation of all our physics principles. The irony is that your supposed proof for infinity uses said principles to prove itself, which is a contradiction.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201173 is a reply to message #201161] |
Sat, 27 May 2006 11:01 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Sat, 27 May 2006 11:06 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 27 May 2006 02:57 |
First off, there is a difference between the assumption that something exists and something existing.
The people that thought electricity existed, that the world was around, that the earth moved around the sun, etc had either CLUES OR EVEN EVIDENCE that gave them the idea in the first place. Did any caveman have that idea? No, because he didn't stumble on any clues. You're doing the complete opposite...you have no clues or evidence whatsoever that God exists, but you believe in it. It's a random thought just like my pink unicorns and believing that there is any truth behind it is, yes, nuts.
|
There is no difference. In both instances, you are claiming that something exists. The existance of proof is irrelevant, because it is subjective to the individual choosing to believe the proof. People claim that there is proof of God's existance all the time. You just decide not to believe it. Just as people claimed they "knew" the world was round, etc. the others just chose not to believe them.
The same concept is there for the "clues or even evidence that gave them the idea in the first place". The clues that people have about God, are the religious text, and the world around them. You just happen to think that this isn't proof. Just as, I'm sure, those countering the idea of the world being round, etc. decided that the "proof" of the respecitve discoverer wasn't actual proof at all.
|
In one instance I still leave the possibility for the other side, in the other I don't. You're saying apples and oranges are the same because they're both fruits...
The religious text is written by ordinary men and each one contradicts the other...how can that be evidence? The judge would laugh at you in court if you try to make a case with that. In that part Scientology is even more believable since there's only one Hubbard sci-fi story...which clue do you mean with the world around you? Science has proven how life here started and evolved. You can't label those things as proof or clues, since they're nothing more than intuition. You can believe in that stuff however, since it can't be completely disproven, just like the pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster and Xenu.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201176 is a reply to message #201163] |
Sat, 27 May 2006 11:26 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Javaxcx wrote on Sat, 27 May 2006 11:14 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 27 May 2006 04:49 |
Call it Big Bang then and not God. You're basically believing into something that fit with the definition of "God" and has started the universe.
|
But it's not even remotely tied to the big bang. The evidence (and there IS evidence based on physics and the transcendental aesthetic) suggests that the unmoved mover can exist and not be corporeal. The suggestion that an unmoved mover is corporeal is a contradiction of all things about natural law. However, to suggest that there is no unmoved mover is also a contradiction of all natural law. That's why the TA is so vital in explaining all this.
| Quote: |
Yes, but every mover has been moved by another mover. I don't understand why there should be a mover that can't be moved.
|
Because it's a violation of the laws of thermodynamics and causality. You're purporting a universe where all things are the sum of their parts, however that extrapolates to contradiction when you establish a generalization for the nature of the universe. "Infinity" is not a concrete construct in our universe-- at ALL. Neither is the notion that the universe has exploded and contracted an infinite number of times.
That's interesting to note though, because you have absolutely no evidence that is any different then mine (albeit less likely then mine) for an infinite regression of causality. The irony is that regardless of infinite causality, the necessity for a mover still exists in a transcendental state.
| Quote: |
Right now we can measure how the star systems have moved away from a center...it makes sense to me that the dark matter will slow the star systems down and ultimatly pull them back together with it's gravity, where the energy will build up again and another Big Bang occurs.
|
We actually have no evidence to suggest this happens or ever happened. It's a mathematical extrapolation based on--> you guessed it, causality in the terms that I am arguing it.
| Quote: |
If you believe in Big Bang you will ultimatly have to believe in infinity. Believing in infinity however will tell you that there is no starting point/God. Basically, you can't believe in God and the Big Bang at the same time and since we have clues and our physics suggest that a Big Bang has occured, I will believe in the latter.
|
Belief in infinity in our universe is a violation of all our physics principles. The irony is that your supposed proof for infinity uses said principles to prove itself, which is a contradiction.
|
I'll have to jump out of the Big Bang - Big Crunch arguement here, since I'm not that good in astronomy or physics that I can argue about it in a foreign language where I would have to google every second scientific term.
I've never said that my theory was any more likely than the other...it's just my feeling. What I do know is that the Big Bang can't be described by any of your current physics, but that we can measure how the galaxies moved away from each other over the years (with the theory of relativity) and that we know how long ago they were together very close and that is was extremely hot at that point. What we know as well is that dark energy exists and that the presumed dark matter is capable of pulling the universe back together...if you want to explain me how those aren't true in more simple terms, then good, if not take it to a professor of astronomy, since I just can't explain how the Big Bang, etc thoroughly works.
BTW Explain to me in simple terms as well, how an unmoved mover can exist instead of spamming terms without explanaition.
lol
[Updated on: Sat, 27 May 2006 11:29] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201179 is a reply to message #201176] |
Sat, 27 May 2006 11:40 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 27 May 2006 14:26 |
I've never said that my theory was any more likely than the other...it's just my feeling. What I do know is that the Big Bang can't be described by any of your current physics, but that we can measure how the galaxies moved away from each other over the years (with the theory of relativity) and that we know how long ago they were together very close and that is was extremely hot at that point. What we know as well is that dark energy exists and that the presumed dark matter is capable of pulling the universe back together...if you want to explain me how those aren't true in more simple terms, then good, if not take it to a professor of astronomy, since I just can't explain how the Big Bang, etc thoroughly works.
|
Since this argument depends on "dark matter" I'll start with that. We actually have no experimental evidence suggesting dark matter even exists. In fact, we've just called the astronomical anomalies of the universe out and said that whatever dark matter is, it's effecting them somehow. Astronomers are literally walking blind and making up possibilities based on assumptions that this unobserved matter and energy exist. Which is kind of silly, because this epistemological conundrum is exactly what you have used to suggest that a first cause doesn't need to exist.
| Quote: |
BTW Explain to me in simple terms as well, how an unmoved mover can exist instead of spamming terms without explanaition.
|
There are no simple terms to describe the transcendental idealism in the full. It literally (and I am not exaggerating this in any way) was one of the hardest concepts I've actually tried grasp and understand fully. The book alone, "critique of pure reason" by Kant took a solid year of reading and re-reading just to make sense of his logic; which by the end doesn't clusterfuck like many of the moderns today. The simplest and most concise way to describe it I've found is:
http://www.bright.net/~jclarke/kant/element1.html
It's a ridiculously condensed version of the conclusions drawn, and many of them are useless to comprehend without the text to back them up. Luckily for you, I provided the text for you before should it peek your curiousity.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201234 is a reply to message #201173] |
Sat, 27 May 2006 16:25 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 27 May 2006 12:01 |
| warranto wrote on Sat, 27 May 2006 11:06 |
| JohnDoe wrote on Sat, 27 May 2006 02:57 |
First off, there is a difference between the assumption that something exists and something existing.
The people that thought electricity existed, that the world was around, that the earth moved around the sun, etc had either CLUES OR EVEN EVIDENCE that gave them the idea in the first place. Did any caveman have that idea? No, because he didn't stumble on any clues. You're doing the complete opposite...you have no clues or evidence whatsoever that God exists, but you believe in it. It's a random thought just like my pink unicorns and believing that there is any truth behind it is, yes, nuts.
|
There is no difference. In both instances, you are claiming that something exists. The existance of proof is irrelevant, because it is subjective to the individual choosing to believe the proof. People claim that there is proof of God's existance all the time. You just decide not to believe it. Just as people claimed they "knew" the world was round, etc. the others just chose not to believe them.
The same concept is there for the "clues or even evidence that gave them the idea in the first place". The clues that people have about God, are the religious text, and the world around them. You just happen to think that this isn't proof. Just as, I'm sure, those countering the idea of the world being round, etc. decided that the "proof" of the respecitve discoverer wasn't actual proof at all.
|
In one instance I still leave the possibility for the other side, in the other I don't. You're saying apples and oranges are the same because they're both fruits...
The religious text is written by ordinary men and each one contradicts the other...how can that be evidence? The judge would laugh at you in court if you try to make a case with that. In that part Scientology is even more believable since there's only one Hubbard sci-fi story...which clue do you mean with the world around you? Science has proven how life here started and evolved. You can't label those things as proof or clues, since they're nothing more than intuition. You can believe in that stuff however, since it can't be completely disproven, just like the pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster and Xenu.
|
True, in one you leave a possibility open for the alternative. It doesn't matter though, in both instances you express that the idea "makes no sense", and is "nuts". In both instances, you qualify it as not existing; it "might not exist, therefore I don't believe" and "it doesn't exist, therefore I don't believe" both convey the same message: that you don't think something exists.
The Religious text don't contradict each other. They ALL state that God exists. The only problem is that each text states one is more right than the other. That isn't a contradiction, just a disagreement on the fact.
You state that Science has proven how life has started and evolved. I challenge you to show me this proof.
As for the "labeling things as proof", who is to say that something hasn't been mislabeled? Do you have anything that could suggest the label given something is the correct one?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201240 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sat, 27 May 2006 16:55 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
True, in one you leave a possibility open for the alternative. It doesn't matter though, in both instances you express that the idea "makes no sense", and is "nuts". In both instances, you qualify it as not existing; it "might not exist, therefore I don't believe" and "it doesn't exist, therefore I don't believe" both convey the same message: that you don't think something exists.
|
Yes, now tell me what's wrong with that? The existance of God is highly unlikely to me, since the only "clue" is intuition, which isn't a clue at all. I'm still leaving the opportunity open for God existing after all, tho, since I can't prove that he doesn't exist, same goes for the pink unicorns.
| Quote: |
The Religious text don't contradict each other. They ALL state that God exists. The only problem is that each text states one is more right than the other. That isn't a contradiction, just a disagreement on the fact.
|
Uhm that God exists is the only thing they agree on...call it disagreement on everything else then, my point was that it doesn't help their crediability in either way.
| Quote: |
You state that Science has proven how life has started and evolved. I challenge you to show me this proof.
|
Life has evolved through mutation and selection.
Life can start through chemical reactions which has been done in an experiment...I'll get more material tomorrow if you haven't heard of that before.
| Quote: |
As for the "labeling things as proof", who is to say that something hasn't been mislabeled? Do you have anything that could suggest the label given something is the correct one?
|
Intuition is neither clue, evidence or proof, Simple as that. It's a bit late and I'm tired, so tell me tomorrow if I missed what you were trying to bring across by that.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201268 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sun, 28 May 2006 01:15 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Quote: |
First, intuition is one of the primary sources of discovery. I highly doubt that every single discovery/invention/whatever had nothing to do with someone's intuition not comming into play.
In fact, most successful people out there will tell you that their intuition assisted them at some point in thier life.
|
Of course, but not intuition alone.
| Quote: |
That's nice. It doesn't prove that's how we got here. Unless you're suggesting that you are deciding to actually believe the person when he says this experiment is evidence of how we got here, and not simply anther possibility.
|
It proves how life can start out of the chemicals the world was made of, so unless you have another plausible way (that doesn't include magic), I'll believe that, thank you.
| Quote: |
I see you don't trust science either then.
|
Scientists have evidence or clues to support their theories, the religions have not.
lol
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201285 is a reply to message #188804] |
Sun, 28 May 2006 04:37 |
|
JohnDoe
Messages: 1416
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
On a side note, I have changed my opinion on the whole universe thing. I now think that there can be something that is uncaused, but I cut the superfluous God and say that the universe is that thing. Therefore, I believe the Big Bang sounds more plausible than the Big Crush.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Protests over a cartoon... wtf. [message #201355 is a reply to message #201268] |
Sun, 28 May 2006 15:23 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| JohnDoe wrote on Sun, 28 May 2006 02:15 |
Scientists have evidence or clues to support their theories, the religions have not.
|
Religion has as much "evidence" as science does. Religious text that explain things , Religious leaders who have personal knowledge relating to God and documented "experiments" that can only qualify if they have no scientific explanation.
The only difference is who you choose to believe, as you have no personal knowledge of almost anything science or religion claims.
| Quote: |
It proves how life can start out of the chemicals the world was made of
|
Please don't contradict yourself in the same sentence. You can not prove how something "can", you can only prove how something "did".
True, the experiments give an explanation as to how life "can" start, but it in no way proves how life "did" start.
Another possibility (without invoking the word "God") is that we spontaneously generated. After all, if the universe can do it, so should we be able to. Or, we were not created, but we always existed, in some other form than we had now. There is not always a chemical reaction required to change forms (ie. evolution), so perhaps humanity came to exist through reasons of that.
[Updated on: Sun, 28 May 2006 15:28] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 25 18:21:18 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 1.57873 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
