|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:26 pm
Lethkhar Your personal preference is not of concern here. There are people who experience more emotional attachment to a milk jug than to your God. They can't both be supreme, can they? I have never felt the desire to be close to God. God does not fulfill me spiritually, no matter how hard I try and how deeply I search. Give me one good reason why I should worship God and not the milk jug. Because I'm not the only one who believes that. My personal preference is the explanation a great many Christians give. I'm not saying that to be spiritually fulfilled, not all find MY god, but they find *A* god. If someone can be emotionally attached to a milk jug, I pity them. There are so many bigger concepts of a higher being in the universe, and I'm not saying that all of them are wrong. And you can't have FAITH in a milk jug. It's there. You can touch it and see it and feel it respond. Faith is a question of believing when no concrete evidence is offered. Sure, someone might have that strange relationship with a milk jug. But never faith.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:13 pm
ryuu_chan Lethkhar Your personal preference is not of concern here. There are people who experience more emotional attachment to a milk jug than to your God. They can't both be supreme, can they? I have never felt the desire to be close to God. God does not fulfill me spiritually, no matter how hard I try and how deeply I search. Give me one good reason why I should worship God and not the milk jug. Because I'm not the only one who believes that. My personal preference is the explanation a great many Christians give. I'm not saying that to be spiritually fulfilled, not all find MY god, but they find *A* god. So you think that what the majority believes is a good way to determine what you believe? Do you want to clarify that before I go off on why that's wrong? Quote: If someone can be emotionally attached to a milk jug, I pity them. There are so many bigger concepts of a higher being in the universe, and I'm not saying that all of them are wrong. Like the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Quote: And you can't have FAITH in a milk jug. It's there. You can touch it and see it and feel it respond. Faith is a question of believing when no concrete evidence is offered. Sure, someone might have that strange relationship with a milk jug. But never faith. Descartes would argue otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:12 pm
Lethkar Descartes would argue otherwise. Descartes believed in God. In fact, Descartes wrote a book that uses thought to prove the concept of God. I just had to read his treaties, Meditations on First Philosophy, for my college and write an essay explaining his "proof" of the existence of God. So, I'm not really sure why you are bringing in Descartes as a proof against faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:39 pm
Lethkhar So you think that what the majority believes is a good way to determine what you believe? Do you want to clarify that before I go off on why that's wrong? You know, there a big round bruise on my butt where you keep trying to stab me. evil No, that wasn't what I said. By following what the masses believe, it's easier to find patterns in human behavior. Humans, as a whole, gravitate toward religion, things of a spiritual nature. Somewhere, something has built into us the need to seek something that we can't see, can't fully comprehend. Something bigger than ourselves. Goldenlici Lethkar Descartes would argue otherwise. Descartes believed in God. In fact, Descartes wrote a book that uses thought to prove the concept of God. I just had to read his treaties, Meditations on First Philosophy, for my college and write an essay explaining his "proof" of the existence of God. So, I'm not really sure why you are bringing in Descartes as a proof against faith. ^ I thought something along the same lines here. I'm confused as to your choice of philosopher as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:34 pm
ryuu_chan Lethkhar So you think that what the majority believes is a good way to determine what you believe? Do you want to clarify that before I go off on why that's wrong? You know, there a big round bruise on my butt where you keep trying to stab me. evil No, that wasn't what I said. By following what the masses believe, it's easier to find patterns in human behavior. Humans, as a whole, gravitate toward religion, things of a spiritual nature. Somewhere, something has built into us the need to seek something that we can't see, can't fully comprehend. Something bigger than ourselves. Your argument is flawed; there are hundreds of millions of people who do not experience that pull, and those that do tend to have been raised in a religious household. You would need some kind of experimental data to support the claim that almost all humans experience superstition. Luckily, Skinner already performed quite a few experiments concerning superstition. Did you know that pigeons are superstitious? Quote: Goldenlici Lethkar Descartes would argue otherwise. Descartes believed in God. In fact, Descartes wrote a book that uses thought to prove the concept of God. I just had to read his treaties, Meditations on First Philosophy, for my college and write an essay explaining his "proof" of the existence of God. So, I'm not really sure why you are bringing in Descartes as a proof against faith. ^ I thought something along the same lines here. I'm confused as to your choice of philosopher as well. Addressed after this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:44 pm
Quote: Goldenlici Lethkar Descartes would argue otherwise. Descartes believed in God. No s**t; Descartes was hired by the Catholic Church to dedicate his entire life to trying to prove the existence of an involved God and counter all of the other Enlightenment thinkers who were becoming increasingly deist in their views. Quote: In fact, Descartes wrote a book that uses thought to prove the concept of God. He wrote multiple books trying to do that, actually. I feel sort of sorry for the guy. For instance; in his famous "I think, therefore I am" essay, he spent the entire first 3/4 of the essay explaining a very profound and influential idea; we cannot trust our senses. As far as I can tell, aside from his mathematical contributions that was the only truly valid argument he made that actually had a significant impact on later philosophy and science. Hell, it's the reason why I'm a weak atheist instead of a strong atheist. Then he spends the last 1/4 of that same essay by tagging on his Ontological argument, which is total bullshit and really doesn't have any grounding in logic whatsoever. It's like he had this great idea, and then after writing it he remembered what his job description was and tagged on some random vague statements that completely contradict what the entire rest of the essay was saying and said,"Aw, they won't notice the difference..." Quote: I just had to read his treaties, Meditations on First Philosophy, for my college and write an essay explaining his "proof" of the existence of God. Oh, so then you know what I'm talking about. It's silly, isn't it? Quote: So, I'm not really sure why you are bringing in Descartes as a proof against faith. I'm using one of his arguments, namely the one I mentioned earlier. I'm excluding the last part of the essay because what it essentially says is,"What I've been writing holds true for everything except for God because...uh...He's perfect! Yeah! He's perfect and therefore by definition must exist!" If we ignored all of the findings done by theists then we would be very short of knowledge indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:34 am
You did not really explain what Descartes had to do with the milk jug thing; you just said he was relevant. Don't be nasty. I'm not trying to say you don't know what you are talking about, I'm just saying that Descartes actually uses the idea that you need to have faith in objects to prove that God exists. He says the only way you can believe an object truly exists and is not just your imagination is by believing that "something" created that jug. He never specifically mentions the catholic "God" just that there has to be something more. Yes, he was hired by the Catholic church, but what you didn't mention was that the Catholic Church hated his work because they thought it was actually anti-Catholic. But, Descartes did it in such a subtle way that the church published it anyway because Descartes had publicized that he was making a treaties and people were expecting it. Lethkar I'm excluding the last part of the essay because what it essentially says is,"What I've been writing holds true for everything except for God because...uh...He's perfect! Yeah! He's perfect and therefore by definition must exist!" Not exactly. He says that "something" perfect must exist because we have the idea of perfection. If there was nothing that was perfect, we would never feel imperfect, and he recognized that people feel imperfect all the time. For example, if you had a clock with only the hour hand, you would say the clock was incomplete, but you would not know that unless you knew what a "perfect" and completed clock looked like. To tie this all in with the initial topic here, I don't believe at all that God used evolution because I don't believe He used more than seven days. God is perfect. That is one of the defining features of God. *(Lethkar I am arguing this in a BIblical sense because this is a question of interpreting the bible not believing in the bible. This person is asking about God using evolution and therefore I will argue solely the idea of "how" God created the universe, not "if" He did. That is a different topic.)* I have had a person ask me this question before because I think it is easier to cooperate with evolution rather than take a leap of faith and fight for the Bible. God is perfect, yes? The Bible is God's word, in any language. God doesn't make conceptual faults, semantics of numbers aside. There may be a word that changes the meaning slightly, such as the use of the word love for all three of the hebrew meanings of love, because of the limitations of human speech to describe all the wonders of God. But, changing from creation to evolution is not something that can be argued. 1st: The bible doesn't just say the universe was created in seven days. It goes on to say what happened on each day, twice in fact. 2nd: The account of things each happening on a certain day doesn't always coincide with evolutionary accounts. God created vegetation on the 4th day but didn't create the sun until the next day. And, the Bible said God created birds and fish at the same time, whereas evolution says that land animals came in between the birds and the fish. But, land animals were not created until the next day. 3rd: The Jews believe the earth was created and 7 days and they would have passed this down through oral traditions as well as the Bible, in the original Hebrew. I don't think it was a Hebrew studying Jew who created the idea of "yom" being proof for evolution in the Bible. So, sorry, but it's one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:04 pm
Lethkhar Your argument is flawed; there are hundreds of millions of people who do not experience that pull, and those that do tend to have been raised in a religious household. You would need some kind of experimental data to support the claim that almost all humans experience superstition. Luckily, Skinner already performed quite a few experiments concerning superstition. Did you know that pigeons are superstitious? But there are far more people that DO experience the pull than don't, and I disagree with them being raised in a religious household. Calculate all the people in the world that believe in SOME higher power against the people who don't, and the numbers are overwhelmingly on a world-shaping force, whatever form it may take. *shrug* Another thread where we'll have to agree to disagree. Lethkar Descartes would argue otherwise. Unfortunately, I've only HEARD of his works, never read them for myself. So I'll have to drop out of this argument until another name crops up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:49 pm
Goldenlici You did not really explain what Descartes had to do with the milk jug thing; you just said he was relevant. Don't be nasty. I'm not trying to say you don't know what you are talking about, I'm just saying that Descartes actually uses the idea that you need to have faith in objects to prove that God exists. He says the only way you can believe an object truly exists and is not just your imagination is by believing that "something" created that jug. I don't remember that part. Does he really ever mention creation in that particular essay? The way I understood it was that you can't necessarily take for granted that the jug actually exists at all. Quote: He never specifically mentions the catholic "God" just that there has to be something more. Ah, but he certainly was not speaking of Shiva, was he? Quote: Lethkar I'm excluding the last part of the essay because what it essentially says is,"What I've been writing holds true for everything except for God because...uh...He's perfect! Yeah! He's perfect and therefore by definition must exist!" Not exactly. He says that "something" perfect must exist because we have the idea of perfection. If there was nothing that was perfect, we would never feel imperfect, and he recognized that people feel imperfect all the time. For example, if you had a clock with only the hour hand, you would say the clock was incomplete, but you would not know that unless you knew what a "perfect" and completed clock looked like. Exactly, and this argument has no real basis in logic. It assumes that completion is the same as perfection. It also implies that there is physical perfection at all. There is a difference between psychological sense and physical reality. He pointed that out in the essay; it was his main point. But the ontological argument flies in the face of that by suggesting that psychological sense is physical reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:51 pm
ryuu_chan Lethkhar Your argument is flawed; there are hundreds of millions of people who do not experience that pull, and those that do tend to have been raised in a religious household. You would need some kind of experimental data to support the claim that almost all humans experience superstition. Luckily, Skinner already performed quite a few experiments concerning superstition. Did you know that pigeons are superstitious? But there are far more people that DO experience the pull than don't, and I disagree with them being raised in a religious household. Calculate all the people in the world that believe in SOME higher power against the people who don't, and the numbers are overwhelmingly on a world-shaping force, whatever form it may take. *shrug* Another thread where we'll have to agree to disagree. Your argument still holds no water; the deviant group is so large that it's impossible to make a general statement concerning the human race. I've forgotten why it even matters, now. Even if everyone believed, it wouldn't necessarily make it true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:43 pm
Goldenlici You did not really explain what Descartes had to do with the milk jug thing; you just said he was relevant. Don't be nasty. I'm not trying to say you don't know what you are talking about, I'm just saying that Descartes actually uses the idea that you need to have faith in objects to prove that God exists. He says the only way you can believe an object truly exists and is not just your imagination is by believing that "something" created that jug. He never specifically mentions the catholic "God" just that there has to be something more. Yes, he was hired by the Catholic church, but what you didn't mention was that the Catholic Church hated his work because they thought it was actually anti-Catholic. But, Descartes did it in such a subtle way that the church published it anyway because Descartes had publicized that he was making a treaties and people were expecting it. Lethkar I'm excluding the last part of the essay because what it essentially says is,"What I've been writing holds true for everything except for God because...uh...He's perfect! Yeah! He's perfect and therefore by definition must exist!" Not exactly. He says that "something" perfect must exist because we have the idea of perfection. If there was nothing that was perfect, we would never feel imperfect, and he recognized that people feel imperfect all the time. For example, if you had a clock with only the hour hand, you would say the clock was incomplete, but you would not know that unless you knew what a "perfect" and completed clock looked like. To tie this all in with the initial topic here, I don't believe at all that God used evolution because I don't believe He used more than seven days. God is perfect. That is one of the defining features of God. *(Lethkar I am arguing this in a BIblical sense because this is a question of interpreting the bible not believing in the bible. This person is asking about God using evolution and therefore I will argue solely the idea of "how" God created the universe, not "if" He did. That is a different topic.)* I have had a person ask me this question before because I think it is easier to cooperate with evolution rather than take a leap of faith and fight for the Bible. God is perfect, yes? The Bible is God's word, in any language. God doesn't make conceptual faults, semantics of numbers aside. There may be a word that changes the meaning slightly, such as the use of the word love for all three of the hebrew meanings of love, because of the limitations of human speech to describe all the wonders of God. But, changing from creation to evolution is not something that can be argued. 1st: The bible doesn't just say the universe was created in seven days. It goes on to say what happened on each day, twice in fact. 2nd: The account of things each happening on a certain day doesn't always coincide with evolutionary accounts. God created vegetation on the 4th day but didn't create the sun until the next day. And, the Bible said God created birds and fish at the same time, whereas evolution says that land animals came in between the birds and the fish. But, land animals were not created until the next day. 3rd: The Jews believe the earth was created and 7 days and they would have passed this down through oral traditions as well as the Bible, in the original Hebrew. I don't think it was a Hebrew studying Jew who created the idea of "yom" being proof for evolution in the Bible. So, sorry, but it's one way or the other. Thank you for answering my question. You make some very good, very convincing points. At first I thought that evolution and the bible might go together, because then evolution would actually make sense. Evolution, either way though, I didn't think it ever seemed very plausible to me. I want to know how we evolved a conscience. Or the eye. I'd like them to talk to statitcians. xd But I hate arguing with evolutionists. So stubborn. Anyway thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 4:09 pm
Lethkhar Goldenlici You did not really explain what Descartes had to do with the milk jug thing; you just said he was relevant. Don't be nasty. I'm not trying to say you don't know what you are talking about, I'm just saying that Descartes actually uses the idea that you need to have faith in objects to prove that God exists. He says the only way you can believe an object truly exists and is not just your imagination is by believing that "something" created that jug. I don't remember that part. Does he really ever mention creation in that particular essay? The way I understood it was that you can't necessarily take for granted that the jug actually exists at all. It is in his meditations, mostly the sixth one. It covers a great deal of paragraphs that I don't want to type out, but I did find one sentence in particular that states this.
"And surely there is no doubt that all that I am taught by nature has some truth to it; for by "nature," taken generally, I understand nothing other than God Himself or the network of created things which was instituted by God."
Though this is not his entire argument, it is his basic idea.Quote: He never specifically mentions the catholic "God" just that there has to be something more. Ah, but he certainly was not speaking of Shiva, was he? Quote: Lethkar I'm excluding the last part of the essay because what it essentially says is,"What I've been writing holds true for everything except for God because...uh...He's perfect! Yeah! He's perfect and therefore by definition must exist!" Not exactly. He says that "something" perfect must exist because we have the idea of perfection. If there was nothing that was perfect, we would never feel imperfect, and he recognized that people feel imperfect all the time. For example, if you had a clock with only the hour hand, you would say the clock was incomplete, but you would not know that unless you knew what a "perfect" and completed clock looked like. Exactly, and this argument has no real basis in logic. It assumes that completion is the same as perfection. It also implies that there is physical perfection at all. The argument is pretty straightforward. How do we know that we are imperfect?There is a difference between psychological sense and physical reality. He pointed that out in the essay; it was his main point. But the ontological argument flies in the face of that by suggesting that psychological sense is physical reality. What is your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:00 pm
Goldenlici Lethkhar Goldenlici You did not really explain what Descartes had to do with the milk jug thing; you just said he was relevant. Don't be nasty. I'm not trying to say you don't know what you are talking about, I'm just saying that Descartes actually uses the idea that you need to have faith in objects to prove that God exists. He says the only way you can believe an object truly exists and is not just your imagination is by believing that "something" created that jug. I don't remember that part. Does he really ever mention creation in that particular essay? The way I understood it was that you can't necessarily take for granted that the jug actually exists at all. It is in his meditations, mostly the sixth one. It covers a great deal of paragraphs that I don't want to type out, but I did find one sentence in particular that states this.
"And surely there is no doubt that all that I am taught by nature has some truth to it; for by "nature," taken generally, I understand nothing other than God Himself or the network of created things which was instituted by God."
Though this is not his entire argument, it is his basic idea.We're talking about different writings. I'm talking about the only valid argument I've ever seen from Descartes that doesn't have to do with math. Quote: Quote: He never specifically mentions the catholic "God" just that there has to be something more. Ah, but he certainly was not speaking of Shiva, was he? Quote: Lethkar I'm excluding the last part of the essay because what it essentially says is,"What I've been writing holds true for everything except for God because...uh...He's perfect! Yeah! He's perfect and therefore by definition must exist!" Not exactly. He says that "something" perfect must exist because we have the idea of perfection. If there was nothing that was perfect, we would never feel imperfect, and he recognized that people feel imperfect all the time. For example, if you had a clock with only the hour hand, you would say the clock was incomplete, but you would not know that unless you knew what a "perfect" and completed clock looked like. Exactly, and this argument has no real basis in logic. It assumes that completion is the same as perfection. It also implies that there is physical perfection at all. The argument is pretty straightforward. How do we know that we are imperfect?Do we know? Quote: There is a difference between psychological sense and physical reality. He pointed that out in the essay; it was his main point. But the ontological argument flies in the face of that by suggesting that psychological sense is physical reality. What is your point?My point is that the ontological argument is contradictory to one of the few logical philosophical writings Descartes ever released.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:02 pm
dragongirl42391 Goldenlici You did not really explain what Descartes had to do with the milk jug thing; you just said he was relevant. Don't be nasty. I'm not trying to say you don't know what you are talking about, I'm just saying that Descartes actually uses the idea that you need to have faith in objects to prove that God exists. He says the only way you can believe an object truly exists and is not just your imagination is by believing that "something" created that jug. He never specifically mentions the catholic "God" just that there has to be something more. Yes, he was hired by the Catholic church, but what you didn't mention was that the Catholic Church hated his work because they thought it was actually anti-Catholic. But, Descartes did it in such a subtle way that the church published it anyway because Descartes had publicized that he was making a treaties and people were expecting it. Lethkar I'm excluding the last part of the essay because what it essentially says is,"What I've been writing holds true for everything except for God because...uh...He's perfect! Yeah! He's perfect and therefore by definition must exist!" Not exactly. He says that "something" perfect must exist because we have the idea of perfection. If there was nothing that was perfect, we would never feel imperfect, and he recognized that people feel imperfect all the time. For example, if you had a clock with only the hour hand, you would say the clock was incomplete, but you would not know that unless you knew what a "perfect" and completed clock looked like. To tie this all in with the initial topic here, I don't believe at all that God used evolution because I don't believe He used more than seven days. God is perfect. That is one of the defining features of God. *(Lethkar I am arguing this in a BIblical sense because this is a question of interpreting the bible not believing in the bible. This person is asking about God using evolution and therefore I will argue solely the idea of "how" God created the universe, not "if" He did. That is a different topic.)* I have had a person ask me this question before because I think it is easier to cooperate with evolution rather than take a leap of faith and fight for the Bible. God is perfect, yes? The Bible is God's word, in any language. God doesn't make conceptual faults, semantics of numbers aside. There may be a word that changes the meaning slightly, such as the use of the word love for all three of the hebrew meanings of love, because of the limitations of human speech to describe all the wonders of God. But, changing from creation to evolution is not something that can be argued. 1st: The bible doesn't just say the universe was created in seven days. It goes on to say what happened on each day, twice in fact. 2nd: The account of things each happening on a certain day doesn't always coincide with evolutionary accounts. God created vegetation on the 4th day but didn't create the sun until the next day. And, the Bible said God created birds and fish at the same time, whereas evolution says that land animals came in between the birds and the fish. But, land animals were not created until the next day. 3rd: The Jews believe the earth was created and 7 days and they would have passed this down through oral traditions as well as the Bible, in the original Hebrew. I don't think it was a Hebrew studying Jew who created the idea of "yom" being proof for evolution in the Bible. So, sorry, but it's one way or the other. Thank you for answering my question. You make some very good, very convincing points. At first I thought that evolution and the bible might go together, because then evolution would actually make sense. Evolution, either way though, I didn't think it ever seemed very plausible to me. I want to know how we evolved a conscience. Or the eye. I'd like them to talk to statitcians. xd But I hate arguing with evolutionists. So stubborn. Anyway thanks for that. Evolutionists are "stubborn" because they won't bend reality to fit your own quota. The eye began with a form of fish that could sense light. A form of "conscience" can be found in all animals. I could explain the various theories if you want, though it would take some time that I don't really have. Either way, evolution is a helluvalot more plausible than,"The earth is 6000 years old and humans, despite them sharing so much DNA with chimpanzees that they can actually have blood transfusions with them! Deal with it!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:50 am
In saying that evolution is easier to understand than creationism, you are taking the same approach to christianity that you accuse christians of taking towards evolution. You believe evolution, so that makes it easier for you to see how it works. You see the facts you want to see and stop there. As a christian, I have been taught evolution in school many times, but I have chosen, because of my background, to research the claims of evolution. Christians are not given the choice about hearing the facts about evolution, but nobody ever forced you to look at the facts for creationism. That does not mean that evolution is more plausible just because only facts about evolution are openly taught in schools and that does not mean that facts about creationism do not exist. Christians have to read biology books on evolution and Darwins theories of evolution. How many books have you read that give support for creationism? Have you read The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, an atheist journalist, or any other works on creation? There are many Christian scientists that have researched creation and made great discoveries for creationism, just as evolutionists are discovering things for evolution. You accused me and many others of being ignorant about evolution, but I have yet to hear you debate any of the scientific claims of creation. We are always the ones having to explain scientific evolutionary facts, but you have yet to explain any of the scientific creationist facts. We have already debated evolution once, and I held up pretty well. If you seriously believe in evolution, then study both sides of the argument. For thousands of years creationists have stuck with a beginning of the universe being at one point in time 6,000 years ago, while evolutionists seem to always be changing the age of the universe every couple of years. Who seems to be bending reality to fit their quota?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
