[Cold Iron]

Illuyankas;361001 said:

@CI: That's why I said knowledge, not technology. That's just a useful sideline. But you can't deny how useful it's all been, and I for one would rather go forward then backwards, or sideways to stagnate.

If you don't want to summarise your views on technology again, tell me the names of the threads you did post them in so I can read them and perhaps get back to you.

No no, I meant you'd now know why I'd said things in those threads due to what I just said in this thread.

Technology aside (well done for that) you are right, we know an awful lot more today than ever before. But most fields of modern science (including philosophy, which is basically what we are discussing here) is beyond the general consumption and utilisation of most people.

[Terez]

It's still arbitrary, CI. And despite your yammering, I never had a hard time following your arguments... like I said, I once believed the same thing. Then I realized it was an arbitrary belief, with no basis whatsoever in rational thought, so I ditched it.

[Terez]

RodeoRanch;360969 said:

Hell, an empty bottle of beer can be everything in the universe too if you widen the definition enough. You've reduced any counter-argument to irrelevance by taking your definition to an extreme.

I'm reminded of a WoT quote...

RJ said:

TITLE - The Eye of the World
CHAPTER: 13 - Choices

"I'm only saying what I heard, ain't I? Just what I heard, Master Andra. They say, some do, that he's moving his army east and south, toward Tear." His voice became heavy with meaning. "They say he's named them the People of the Dragon."

"Names mean little," Moiraine said calmly. If anything she had heard disturbed her, she gave no outward sign of it now. "You could call your mule People of the Dragon, if you wanted."

"Not likely, mistress." Avin chuckled. "Not with the Whitecloaks around, for sure. I don't expect anybody else would look kindly on a name like that, neither. I see what you mean, but ... oh, no, mistress. Not my mule."

[Cold Iron]

Terez;361015 said:

It's still arbitrary, CI. And despite your yammering, I never had a hard time following your arguments... like I said, I once believed the same thing. Then I realized it was an arbitrary belief, with no basis whatsoever in rational thought, so I ditched it.

I'm sorry but I must disagree, belief in the existence of existence is the very essence of rationality. If you have followed what I've said you would know that I am not suggesting any faith or irrational belief whatsoever, I am simply advocating a particular, non-arbitrary definition of god that exists every bit as much as you or I exist. Would you prefer me to call it the way (or tao)? or the golden path? or Nature? or the Universe? None of these things pertain to the Abrahamic religions in the same way as the word god, and I am referring to the god of the Abrahamic religions. I am saying that this god is exactly what they are talking about, not my invention or redefinition. The irrational god is a product of unbelievers building straw men and believers having faith in their spiritual leaders and not knowing precisely what it is they believe.

I can give you evidence for this assertion but I'd have to go do a bit of research, I don't know the quotes off the top of my head and I'm hesitant to bother as have already said you don't care.

[Cold Iron]

http://en.wikipedia...._Schleiermacher

This is a good place to start if you're interested.

[Terez]

Cold Iron;361026 said:

I'm sorry but I must disagree, belief in the existence of existence is the very essence of rationality.

I'm sorry, but what? The existence of existence? Aside from being redundant...no one ever said existence wasn't real. Just that it's arbitrary to call it "god".

CI said:

If you have followed what I've said you would know that I am not suggesting any faith or irrational belief whatsoever, I am simply advocating a particular, non-arbitrary definition of god that exists every bit as much as you or I exist.

As has already been pointed out several times, names mean little, so you might as well call a spade a spade.

CI said:

Would you prefer me to call it the way (or tao)? or the golden path? or Nature? or the Universe? None of these things pertain to the Abrahamic religions in the same way as the word god, and I am referring to the god of the Abrahamic religions.

No you're not. You're referring to your own god that you made up. You might associate it with the Judeochristian god, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

CI said:

I am saying that this god is exactly what they are talking about, not my invention or redefinition. The irrational god is a product of unbelievers building straw men and believers having faith in their spiritual leaders and not knowing precisely what it is they believe.

The only basis for a belief in the Judeochristian god in the first place is the scriptures themselves, and the scriptures paint the irrational god. If there were any real evidence for the existence of this god beyond the scriptures, you might have a point, but as it is, you've just taken it and redefined it so that it makes sense to you. That doesn't make it true. And I'll say again that I understand what you've done here because I did the same thing myself, and I held onto that belief for some years before I admitted to myself how irrational it was.

CI said:

I can give you evidence for this assertion but I'd have to go do a bit of research, I don't know the quotes off the top of my head and I'm hesitant to bother as have already said you don't care.

Did I? I don't recall...but if you've got any actual evidence, then by all means, present it.

[Cold Iron]

Terez;361028 said:

The only basis for a belief in the Judeochristian god in the first place is the scriptures themselves, and the scriptures paint the irrational god. If there were any real evidence for the existence of this god beyond the scriptures, you might have a point, but as it is, you've just taken it and redefined it so that it makes sense to you. That doesn't make it true.

- God is eternal: Deut 33:27; Isa 9:6; 1 Tim 1:17; Isa 44:6
- God is everywhere (omnipresent): Mk 5:10; Jude 6; Rev 20:1-3; 1 Ki 8:27; 2 Chron 2:6; 6:18; Isa 66:1; Acts 7:49; 17:27-28; Ps 139:7-13
- God is all knowing (omniscient): Ps 139:1-6; Job 42:2; Acts 2:23; 1 Tim 1:17
- God is all powerful (omnipotent): Gen 17:1; 35:11; Rom 13:1; 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 19:6
- God is invisible: Ex 33:20; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; 1 Tim 6:16; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 11:27

At this point are you thinking... "Ahhh must be a supernatural entity" or are you thinking "Hmm... must be a conceptual analogy"?

One of these is obviously irrational, why choose it over the other? Did someone prove to you that is what those passages truly mean despite the irrationality?

[HoosierDaddy]

Cold Iron;361026 said:

The irrational god is a product of unbelievers building straw men and believers having faith in their spiritual leaders and not knowing precisely what it is they believe.

I'd disagree with this statement, CI. The irrational God of Judeochristian belief is not a straw man argument. It is an all powerful, all knowing deity that suddenly changes its very essence of punishing wrong-doers with absolutely no remorse, and no afterthought for no reason whatsoever.

[Cold Iron]

I think I need more proof. This may take a while.

[Cause]

Gem Windcaster;360915 said:

I haven't seen a religion make claims to have proof, ever. But I've never seen the point of religion for religion's sake. It is simply not my thing. But what's your point? I don't quite get what you are getting at. And religion is not that alone in making bold claims.

You said god could not be rpoved or disproved. Im saying we dont really have to. Alof of ceationist argument is not to defend god, Its to defedn the christian god and hsi religeon whcih says creation happened in 6 days the world is 6000 years old. Or to protect God Y and his religeon.

We can prove the world is not 6000 years old etc

As for you not hearing a religeons speak about its supposed truths I find that hard to believe. Rabbis in judaism are fulled to bursting with such. The torah says their are only four animals that either chew their cud but dont have split hooves or vice versa. And its not wrong! Yeah but its not right either since two of the animals have yet to be found anywhere.

[Cougar]

CI it seems a sound tactic to kill any arguments: expand the definition of 'god' to include everything, making the definition itself absurd.

Kind of reminds me of Marx's base/superstructure argument, you can't argue against it because you are part of it so nuuuhhhh.

I'm interested in the pillars of CIs belief if he'll indulge me with a couple of answers:

You believe that effectively god is everything, the entirety of creation right?

Do you believe that this entirety has any kind of sentient intelligence?

Do you think existence has purpose?

Do you particularly follow one path? So far your statments have encompased a great deal of religious philosophy without seeming to favour one in particular.

I can has cheezburger?

[Cold Iron]

Cougar;361076 said:

CI it seems a sound tactic to kill any arguments: expand the definition of 'god' to include everything, making the definition itself absurd.

Kind of reminds me of Marx's base/superstructure argument, you can't argue against it because you are part of it so nuuuhhhh.

I'm interested in the pillars of CIs belief if he'll indulge me with a couple of answers:

You believe that effectively god is everything, the entirety of creation right?

Do you believe that this entirety has any kind of sentient intelligence?

Do you think existence has purpose?

Do you particularly follow one path? So far your statments have encompased a great deal of religious philosophy without seeming to favour one in particular.

I can has cheezburger?

Now you're just indulging me (Or are you trying to show that I'm a sexed up atheist?)

A while ago DM was kind enough to point me in the direction of Baruch de Spinoza who, using Descartes' methodology, concluded that god (which was commonly defined by medieval philosophers as an infinite being, having infinite attributes - I can't imagine that anyone would take issue with this definition, it is both in the bible and part of the commonly held perception and tradition) and nature can only be one and the same (as there can only be one substance - see the link for more).

You may say this sounds absurd, but Spinoza's work is highly regarded and considered to be significantly influential. It is interesting that you mention Marx though, as his work seems to have been especially influential to some late 20th century left leaning philosophers.

This concept of god as the infinite is a common belief among modern protestant theologians, due largely to the work of Schleiermacher who, using Kant, attempted to (re?)unite reason with orthodoxy. The idea that religion is symbolic and it's meanings hidden in imagery is not something I've just made up, nor am I the only one who believes that the biblical descriptions of god add up to something other than the common interpretation or popular description. This is not a flight of fancy that I'm taking just because it makes sense to me, although I would still believe it even if it was

Anyway to answer your questions, I would say I believe god can be understood as the reason for all things and in this way the embodiment of all things. It has no sentience in the way that is commonly understood by the word but it is possible to analogously apply sentience to it in order to describe or understand a particular aspect or attribute of god. I believe it can have no purpose; as the infinite it does not do it just is. Finally the path I try to follow is what I feel to be right good or true, and I would say the highest ideal or goal for any life is the freedom to love, which is in itself a long post and this one has taken me long enough. There's only so long you can go on about yourself If you want to know about my influences, I have few, I'm not widely read and tend to be told about people like Spinoza and Schleiermacher after I've described what I myself already believe. Perhaps you can tell me another one?

[Gem Windcaster]

Cold Iron;361007 said:

Also, as an aside to stay slightly on topic, may I say that one great thing about the perception of god that I described above is that it interferes in no way with science, and that actually science helps to reveal it's nature and thus should never be discouraged (a la creationism).

I completely agree with this. ^^

Cause;361073 said:

You said god could not be rpoved or disproved. Im saying we dont really have to. Alof of ceationist argument is not to defend god, Its to defedn the christian god and hsi religeon whcih says creation happened in 6 days the world is 6000 years old. Or to protect God Y and his religeon.

We can prove the world is not 6000 years old etc

As for you not hearing a religeons speak about its supposed truths I find that hard to believe. Rabbis in judaism are fulled to bursting with such. The torah says their are only four animals that either chew their cud but dont have split hooves or vice versa. And its not wrong! Yeah but its not right either since two of the animals have yet to be found anywhere.

Well, duh. I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. Personally I think the earth itself is older than 6000 years - but I think humans were created about 10,000 years ago, with the earth itself being older. That does not go against what the bible says, because the bible is quite vague on certain points. As for the animal thing, they might very well have died out. Or not. I don't know - I just think there are more interesting stuff n the bible.

[Gimli's love child]

How have you arrived at the figure of 10,000 years?

[Gem Windcaster]

Gimli said:

How have you arrived at the figure of 10,000 years?

I'm just guessing a random number...

j/k.

Actually, I could have said about 6000 years, but I wanted room for a marginal. I could easily say any number between 5000 years and say...15,000 years. I doesn't really matter to me. But if I'm not completely off there's a number around there where we have evidence of humans existing.

[stone monkey]

Multiply that last figure by ten and you'll be somewhere near it. Or so the fossils say. Although, given how much you probably dislike how those figures are arrived at and the conclusions they suggest, there's probably no point in me telling you about it - even though dating via radioactive decay is dead straightforward in essence.

[Gem Windcaster]

I wasn't talking about fossils, SM. I know all about the fossils, but they are beside my point.

[Illuyankas]

Wait, you're not a 'God planted those fossils' person, are you?

[stone monkey]

Gem Windcaster;361197 said:

Personally I think the earth itself is older than 6000 years - but I think humans were created about 10,000 years ago, with the earth itself being older. That does not go against what the bible says, because the bible is quite vague on certain points. As for the animal thing, they might very well have died out. Or not. I don't know - I just think there are more interesting stuff n the bible.

Given that these are fossils of humans that are older than 10000 years BP. I mean, there are human made artifacts that are older than that. So I'm not sure that the Bible could be considered any kind of guide on these matters... So I don't think it's beside your point at all. Unless you want to discount the fossilised remains of modern human beings merely on the basis that they say things about the world that you would prefer not to believe.

As far as the Bible being reliable about events considered to have occurred before recorded history... Well, it's not even especially reliable about a bunch of events that occurred after the start of recorded history - including ones for which its authors could have been present. Let's just say that if the Bible rules in or out an event, I'm not necessarily going to be taking its word for it.

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey;361368 said:

Given that these are fossils of humans that are older than 10000 years BP. I mean, there are human made artifacts that are older than that. So I'm not sure that the Bible could be considered any kind of guide on these matters... So I don't think it's beside your point at all. Unless you want to discount the fossilised remains of modern human beings merely on the basis that they say things about the world that you would prefer not to believe.

As far as the Bible being reliable about events considered to have occurred before recorded history... Well, it's not even especially reliable about a bunch of events that occurred after the start of recorded history - including ones for which its authors could have been present. Let's just say that if the Bible rules in or out an event, I'm not necessarily going to be taking its word for it.

Meh, I don't know enough facts about fossils to get into an argument here.

But fossils are one thing. Actual artifacts are another thing. As for dating the stuff, I am skeptical about the dating methods, and I'm not the only one. The dating methods used are certainly accepted scientifically, but as for proving things, they're not quite as reliable as you would wish.

But as I said, I don't have the facts fresh my head, so I can't really argue with you about details. I was simply being honest about what I think.

Since I don't have my sources at hand, it is intellectual suicide to try to make any arguments.

I respectfully step down from this one - I think that was my cue. *toot*