OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 08:30:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Should I continue to debate Jackal?
Definitely, it's educational - 3 (7.9%)
Sure, at least it is providing a little insight. - 7 (18.4%)
Probably not, it's a waste of time. - 12 (31.6%)
Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion. - 16 (42.1%)
Total Voters: 38

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should, I continue my debate with Jackal?  (Read 11277 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« on: February 16, 2011, 10:24:13 PM »

Here it goes folks. I guess I am feeling a little goofy this evening.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2011, 10:30:18 PM »

Since I hadn't been following your back-and-forth, I immediately thought of Thundercats (and Jackalman) when I saw the thread title.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2011, 10:54:15 PM »

I voted insight.  I suppose it's also educational, but more insight on what he means.  So far, some of his argument is a really a twist of semantics to his own advantage.  So at least I'd like to understand what exactly is he talking about, and perhaps he might understand what we are talking about.

Sometimes, when "theists" become "atheists," they seem to already have a background of defining what or who God is that leads them to disbelief in that said God.  When TTC mentioned he was a Christian and he "understands" our beliefs, I can't help but notice how much he never understood anything in Christianity to begin with.  Makes me wonder if the Protestants he was with are really "Christian" in a dogmatic sense.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2011, 10:59:29 PM »

I voted insight.  I suppose it's also educational, but more insight on what he means.  So far, some of his argument is a really a twist of semantics to his own advantage.  So at least I'd like to understand what exactly is he talking about, and perhaps he might understand what we are talking about.

Sometimes, when "theists" become "atheists," they seem to already have a background of defining what or who God is that leads them to disbelief in that said God.  When TTC mentioned he was a Christian and he "understands" our beliefs, I can't help but notice how much he never understood anything in Christianity to begin with.  Makes me wonder if the Protestants he was with are really "Christian" in a dogmatic sense.

Actually, I state my arguments quite well. And I am from a background of both fields. But good to see the assumptions float around Wink
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2011, 11:10:38 PM »

I voted insight.  I suppose it's also educational, but more insight on what he means.  So far, some of his argument is a really a twist of semantics to his own advantage.  So at least I'd like to understand what exactly is he talking about, and perhaps he might understand what we are talking about.

Sometimes, when "theists" become "atheists," they seem to already have a background of defining what or who God is that leads them to disbelief in that said God.  When TTC mentioned he was a Christian and he "understands" our beliefs, I can't help but notice how much he never understood anything in Christianity to begin with.  Makes me wonder if the Protestants he was with are really "Christian" in a dogmatic sense.

Actually, I state my arguments quite well. And I am from a background of both fields. But good to see the assumptions float around Wink

Lol...I don't mean to offend you.  My assumptions are based on the fact that your arguments, though stated very well, don't make any sense sometimes from the theist point of view.

Your play of words that the "attributes" we give to God leads to God being "nothing" is an example.  We are just talking past each other if you're not seeing our language on our basis.  It's actually interesting you say we believe in essentially "nothing."  Pagans made the same argument against Christians in the past like this.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 11:14:22 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2011, 11:18:08 PM »

I would like to pause a little at this last point, because I am certain that (especially) the persons who wander in and out of Christian forums on the internet have been subjected to brainwashing to a large degree.  These people always resort to mostly the same arguments, which they sometimes copy-paste in forums that they visit.  These arguments are of an anti-Christian content; they accuse the Old Testament, they are forever looking for contradictions within the New Testament, they strive to prove that Christ never existed, they have amassed every crooked thing that various pseudo-Christians have perpetrated throughout History or any other assorted falsified information, and they use it as an accusation against the Christian faith.  In other words, these people are using those arguments to actually attack Christianity!  They don't resort to any philosophical reasons to support their atheism.  And the fact alone that most of them use the exact same arguments is clearly indicative of the fact that there is a COMMON SOURCE of arguments.  Someone is supplying them with all these arguments, and they are being used as blind instruments against the Christian faith.  These people lack even an elementary perception, which would have allowed them to see that others are USING them .

We don't have to search very long to discover where that source is, or who is propagating those arguments. One glance at a paper & magazine stand, at the kinds of magazines that are found there (or on the shelves of certain bookshops), is enough for us to realize who is responsible for this brainwashing.

We are referring to certain ANTI-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS, which are waging war against the Christian faith and which of course have a personal benefit in propagating their false arguments against it to gullible people.

But how do they manage to convince people to fight against the Christian faith, when they themselves don't believe in those religions and theories?

They resort to psychology.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/atheismos/atheistic_absurdities.htm
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2011, 01:02:03 AM »

I voted "probably not, it's a waste of time" because I think it is a waste of time.  There's a huge chasm between the understanding of Jackal's point of view and ours, as well as the terms under which we will conduct an argument.  The end result is, no one walks away enlightened or convinced, but we've done much to broaden that chasm and destroy any hope of coming to an understanding.

Papist, you did well contextualizing your argument and not submitting to Jackal's terms.

Jackal, in my opinion, I think your arguments would do well in a like-minded arena, but are little more than rubber-and-glue here.

In Christ,

Marc
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2011, 01:07:44 AM »

I would like to pause a little at this last point, because I am certain that (especially) the persons who wander in and out of Christian forums on the internet have been subjected to brainwashing to a large degree.  These people always resort to mostly the same arguments, which they sometimes copy-paste in forums that they visit.  These arguments are of an anti-Christian content; they accuse the Old Testament, they are forever looking for contradictions within the New Testament, they strive to prove that Christ never existed, they have amassed every crooked thing that various pseudo-Christians have perpetrated throughout History or any other assorted falsified information, and they use it as an accusation against the Christian faith.  In other words, these people are using those arguments to actually attack Christianity!  They don't resort to any philosophical reasons to support their atheism.  And the fact alone that most of them use the exact same arguments is clearly indicative of the fact that there is a COMMON SOURCE of arguments.  Someone is supplying them with all these arguments, and they are being used as blind instruments against the Christian faith.  These people lack even an elementary perception, which would have allowed them to see that others are USING them .

We don't have to search very long to discover where that source is, or who is propagating those arguments. One glance at a paper & magazine stand, at the kinds of magazines that are found there (or on the shelves of certain bookshops), is enough for us to realize who is responsible for this brainwashing.

We are referring to certain ANTI-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS, which are waging war against the Christian faith and which of course have a personal benefit in propagating their false arguments against it to gullible people.

But how do they manage to convince people to fight against the Christian faith, when they themselves don't believe in those religions and theories?

They resort to psychology.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/atheismos/atheistic_absurdities.htm

Do contradictions not exist? You can begin with the differences of the creation stories. Hardly absurdities to outline contradictions in the bible, or versions of the bible.
Quote
I would like to pause a little at this last point, because I am certain that (especially) the persons who wander in and out of Christian forums on the internet have been subjected to brainwashing to a large degree.

Evidence to support this wild assertion? Ahh yes, evidence doesn't matter if you have faith.

Quote
In other words, these people are using those arguments to actually attack Christianity!

Nobody attacked your religion. You consider questioning your religion and the contradictions found in it as "attacking" it for the purpose of malicious intent. Seems you are stretching for the moral high ground here for Cred points.

Quote
They don't resort to any philosophical reasons to support their atheism.

EH? This would be irrelevant if we do or don't.. And this is actually a lie because many do!. Nice generalization you go there that isn't worth anything.

Quote
And the fact alone that most of them use the exact same arguments is clearly indicative of the fact that there is a COMMON SOURCE of arguments.

Ahh yes, science is a terrible source of conspiracy against your religion. Beats I suppose the common source of irrationality, circular arguments, and logical fallacies as arguments to support one's belief system.. Didn't you hear? The tooth fairy killed your GOD last week and took over.. Care to prove me wrong? AKA Carl Sagan Dragon arguments of trying to prove a negative. You might want to work on those debating skills.

Quote
Someone is supplying them with all these arguments, and they are being used as blind instruments against the Christian faith.  These people lack even an elementary perception, which would have allowed them to see that others are USING them .

Ahh yes, the invention of conspiracy. This is equal to Flat Earthers claiming science is a conspiracy and that the Earth is flat. And what exactly is a blind instrument against faith? Evidence? hmmm.. me thinks evidence is very important.. And isn't faith blind assumption without evidence? yep..Please try again.

Quote
We don't have to search very long to discover where that source is, or who is propagating those arguments. One glance at a paper & magazine stand, at the kinds of magazines that are found there (or on the shelves of certain bookshops), is enough for us to realize who is responsible for this brainwashing.

Ahh yes those biology and science books.. Damn them blaphemous propaganda materials..wait..I'm using a computer atm powered by the local nuclear power plant. o.O Damn I must be brainwashed!  

Quote
These people lack even an elementary perception, which would have allowed them to see that others are USING them .

Other people using the power of opinion? Perhaps your perception of reality only translates to your opinion of it. What have you done to validate your perceptions? Have you drawn a face using zero dimensional values, or with nothing? Can you even picture in your head a zero dimensional object? let us know what perception you speak of here that doesn't just translate to abstract perception of reality to which you then attach logical fallacies to. Is it the sixth sense where you see dead people?

Quote
We are referring to certain ANTI-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS, which are waging war against the Christian faith and which of course have a personal benefit in propagating their false arguments against it to gullible people.

I don't recall going on the street and shooting and killing Christians. Nor do I recall trying to inject teachings of Atheism into a public school system..Wait, isn't that what Creationists are attempting to do? Hmmm.. Theocracywatch.org, or the Christian fundamentalist groups that are trying to re-write American history to sound like it's a "Christian Nation?"... You sure it's Atheists waging a war? How much tv do you watch? Take the tv series "V" for instance.. It's Christians waging War on Science.. Interesting eh Smiley How about the TV series BONES that depicts BONES slow indoctrination into religion, and as a cold heartless person of just logic and reason.. Stereotypes are fun?



 
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2011, 01:12:07 AM »

I voted "probably not, it's a waste of time" because I think it is a waste of time.  There's a huge chasm between the understanding of Jackal's point of view and ours, as well as the terms under which we will conduct an argument.  The end result is, no one walks away enlightened or convinced, but we've done much to broaden that chasm and destroy any hope of coming to an understanding.

Papist, you did well contextualizing your argument and not submitting to Jackal's terms.

Jackal, in my opinion, I think your arguments would do well in a like-minded arena, but are little more than rubber-and-glue here.

In Christ,

Marc

I'm curious as to if you know how I found this place and got here Wink.. I only engaged this place for 1 reason.. (not to troll, or spam it).. Hint.. it starts with I.

But yes, the chasm of nothing as something is never going to be agreed on. There is no way you will ever convince me or any atheist of that premise, or any other logical fallacy. :/..
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2011, 01:25:50 AM »

I voted insight.  I suppose it's also educational, but more insight on what he means.  So far, some of his argument is a really a twist of semantics to his own advantage.  So at least I'd like to understand what exactly is he talking about, and perhaps he might understand what we are talking about.

Sometimes, when "theists" become "atheists," they seem to already have a background of defining what or who God is that leads them to disbelief in that said God.  When TTC mentioned he was a Christian and he "understands" our beliefs, I can't help but notice how much he never understood anything in Christianity to begin with.  Makes me wonder if the Protestants he was with are really "Christian" in a dogmatic sense.

Actually, I state my arguments quite well. And I am from a background of both fields. But good to see the assumptions float around Wink

Lol...I don't mean to offend you.  My assumptions are based on the fact that your arguments, though stated very well, don't make any sense sometimes from the theist point of view.

Your play of words that the "attributes" we give to God leads to God being "nothing" is an example.  We are just talking past each other if you're not seeing our language on our basis.  It's actually interesting you say we believe in essentially "nothing."  Pagans made the same argument against Christians in the past like this.

I didn't say your belief was made of nothing. The idea of something certainly exists, but the object of the idea is entirely a different thing.  When you say the object of you idea or concept of GOD isn't made of anything, that translates to literal context of nothing even if you still retain the belief of the idea as something to believe in. That means it's existence is dependent on being an idea, belief of the idea, and duplication of the idea. Thus the problem of where we are passing each other is the establishment of the existence of the object of your idea. Hence, the image of an apple is not THE APPLE. So when people tell me that something can be made of nothing, it creates a logical fallacy regardless of their perceptual view.. This isn't going to change the reality that nothing can not literally ever be something in literal context. Thus, your GOD's existence remains a Carl Sagan Dragon, or at best an Ideological concept.

We may as well be arguing the kewl factor of a red truck that exists on paper but not out in the real world while one side tries to argue that it's made of nothing so you can't see, touch, taste, or physically feel it. or that it's magically outside the system and a-spatial in a place of negative capacity. :/ It's the absolute proving a negative argument from a position of nothing.  :/

« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 01:28:28 AM by TheJackel » Logged
PoorFoolNicholas
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Theologoumenon
Posts: 1,664


« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2011, 01:31:13 AM »

Have you ever smoked crank?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2011, 01:33:10 AM »

Again, you are missing what we are saying entirely, and not sure you want to understand what we are saying. When some one says that God is made of nothing, I don't think that such a person is saying that God is nothing in the sense of not existing. What that person is saying is that God is not made at all. He is uncomposed, simple, and self-existence. Further, he is only no-thing in the sense of not being any being or thing in field of our natural knowledge, but transcends it; he is not an object but the absolute subject. Not one of the beings we can analyze, but the true "I".
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2011, 01:35:04 AM »

I voted insight.  I suppose it's also educational, but more insight on what he means.  So far, some of his argument is a really a twist of semantics to his own advantage.  So at least I'd like to understand what exactly is he talking about, and perhaps he might understand what we are talking about.

Sometimes, when "theists" become "atheists," they seem to already have a background of defining what or who God is that leads them to disbelief in that said God.  When TTC mentioned he was a Christian and he "understands" our beliefs, I can't help but notice how much he never understood anything in Christianity to begin with.  Makes me wonder if the Protestants he was with are really "Christian" in a dogmatic sense.

Actually, I state my arguments quite well. And I am from a background of both fields. But good to see the assumptions float around Wink

Lol...I don't mean to offend you.  My assumptions are based on the fact that your arguments, though stated very well, don't make any sense sometimes from the theist point of view.

Your play of words that the "attributes" we give to God leads to God being "nothing" is an example.  We are just talking past each other if you're not seeing our language on our basis.  It's actually interesting you say we believe in essentially "nothing."  Pagans made the same argument against Christians in the past like this.

I didn't say your belief was made of nothing. The idea of something certainly exists, but the object of the idea is entirely a different thing.  When you say the object of you idea or concept of GOD isn't made of anything, that translates to literal context of nothing even if you still retain the belief of the idea as something to believe in. That means it's existence is dependent on being an idea, belief of the idea, and duplication of the idea. Thus the problem of where we are passing each other is the establishment of the existence of the object of your idea. Hence, the image of an apple is not THE APPLE. So when people tell me that something can be made of nothing, it creates a logical fallacy regardless of their perceptual view.. This isn't going to change the reality that nothing can not literally ever be something in literal context. Thus, your GOD's existence remains a Carl Sagan Dragon, or at best an Ideological concept.

We may as well be arguing the kewl factor of a red truck that exists on paper but not out in the real world while one side tries to argue that it's made of nothing so you can't see, touch, taste, or physically feel it. or that it's magically outside the system and a-spatial in a place of negative capacity. :/ It's the absolute proving a negative argument from a position of nothing.  :/



Something defined as the beyond the sum of all things that exist is not merely an idea.  An idea is a neuronal firing of data.  Just because you can't scientifically fathom God doesn't mean you can compare him to the Sagan Dragon.  Again, you're comparing apples and oranges.  Dragons have been an idea that is conceptualized and defined as a green (usually green) creature with some matter and throws fire, and thus, its existence has the possibility of actually testing it, and therefore the rejection of it is valid on the fact that no proof of its existence has been shown yet.

Christ become the incarnation of God, an example of God making Himself known to us, in my opinion in the best way possible.  We can't know God by ourselves.  God is described in wholly mysterious language, as the indescribable, the beyond infinity, the truly omnipotent, and yet omni-beneficient.  Dragons and unicorns and noodly appendaged God are all described in actual idolistic (if that's even a word) picturesque terms describing an actual limitation of their characters.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 01:38:02 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2011, 02:31:31 AM »

I'm an atheist, and even I voted for "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion."
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2011, 02:33:25 AM »

I'm an atheist, and even I voted for "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion."
LOL, may I ask you to explain further on why you voted as such?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2011, 02:37:19 AM »

I'm an atheist, and even I voted for "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion."
LOL, may I ask you to explain further on why you voted as such?
All I have seen is the same tired old arguments.  Neither side will bring up points that could ever convince anyway to sway from their "side".
« Last Edit: February 17, 2011, 02:38:01 AM by Entscheidungsproblem » Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2011, 02:46:46 AM »

I'm an atheist, and even I voted for "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion."
LOL, may I ask you to explain further on why you voted as such?
All I have seen is the same tired old arguments.  Neither side will bring up points that could ever convince anyway to sway from their "side".

Not really intended for that purpose.. I use it for debate to explore other peoples beliefs and to challenge them on them. I really don't care if they believe that a magical ice queen of freezyland created it all. It's a belief I will surely enjoy challenging because it's educational.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485



« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2011, 05:28:29 AM »

New minted sophomorism vs. worn out Thomism?

Keep going, it keeps you two occupied.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2011, 11:20:42 AM »

It's not much of a debate. He just keeps repeating himself. One could have more enlightening discussions with a rock.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2011, 11:55:36 AM »

I voted for the last option. I've come to the point in my life where if I know I could make a better case for atheism than my opponent, yet he fails to recognize that (not for my own narcissistic pleasure, but merely so he recognizes that there might be some things he's ignorant of), I'm probably in a useless debate because he'll never say, "Wow, I never thought of that" or "I might be wrong on that point."

If he approaches the debate with the same arguments that Dawkins, Hitchens, et al use and shows himself to be a Google/YouTube atheist, then it's definitely a useless debate. Especially if he's rude about it.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2011, 05:28:10 AM »

It's not much of a debate. He just keeps repeating himself. One could have more enlightening discussions with a rock.

LOL, you would require the brain of a Rock to believe nothing is a GOD. At least I don't partake in intentional stupidity as an argument.


Quote
Just because you can't scientifically fathom God doesn't mean you can compare him to the Sagan Dragon.

I just did.. And you apparently can't fathom him either since you people think he's "incomprehensible" lol.. Do you people ever bother to define the words you use before you use them in a sentence?
Quote
If he approaches the debate with the same arguments that Dawkins, Hitchens, et al use and shows himself to be a Google/YouTube atheist, then it's definitely a useless debate. Especially if he's rude about it.

Yeah, the hypocrisy of the Forum that began with "Your Face is a Logical Fallacy".. Nice try at the moral high ground..

Quote
Again, you are missing what we are saying entirely, and not sure you want to understand what we are saying. When some one says that God is made of nothing, I don't think that such a person is saying that God is nothing in the sense of not existing

Incorrect, learn how to use the English language properly when dealing with definitions of words, and the words you choose to use in your sentences. It's exactly what you are saying. You are basically saying yes it's nothing while trying to claim that it's something at the same time lol. It's basic English! All you have is your idea of GOD, you don't have an object of that idea if you claim it's made of nothing lol.. For Pete's sake people, get educated in the words you use! Hooked on Phonics might be a good starting point for you.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 05:54:16 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2011, 09:27:02 AM »

It's just too bad all you can ever do is posture with incredulity, make fallacious appeals to popular opinion, and bear tales while avoiding any effort at actually proving wrongdoing.

Honestly are you just trolling now by insulting the members of this board?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2011, 09:53:45 AM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2011, 11:35:49 AM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.
Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2011, 12:16:29 PM »

Dialogue is always a good thing, even if in this case it is a series of two monologues since Jackel's 'arguments' refuse to engage the points made.

Now, I await Jackel's rejoinders, which will likely be based on semantics or a borderline ad hominem.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2011, 01:16:38 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.

The problem is you have a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to theological and philosophical language. To say that God is beyond existence means that we can't use the typical signifiers for what it means to 'exist.' It's not a matter of grammar, but of metaphysical presuppositions. You presuppose a naturalist universe and therefore attach definitions to certain words and refuse to allow any other definition for those words.

But what you've forgotten is that language is quite subjective, which is why dictionaries simply give a brief understanding of a word and not a comprehensive definition. While we can communicate in a substantial fashion, the fact is we can't communicate in a comprehensive fashion; that is to say, definitions are not objective. While there are boundaries to certain words, you're completely ignoring the fact that under a supernaturalist presupposition some words mean different things and are non-contradictory in their meaning, they merely contradict the naturalist understanding of the words.

So to say that God is incomprehensible isn't a logical contradiction at all, but quite reasonable - if God is infinite in all possible aspects and we are finite in all possible aspects, then God, being greater, will be incomprehensible to those of us who are smaller. That means that He can't be comprehended, which makes logically sense; humans have a limit to their cognitive functions, often based on their noetic environment. With this in mind, if God is infinite and supernatural, then He exists above and outside of our noetic environment, meaning that even if our cognitive functions were perfect and running at optimal capacity, He would still be incomprehensible because He is outside our noetic environment. If He existed within our noetic environment, it would mean that something is greater than God, meaning by definition He would no longer be God.

So before you ridicule things or attempt to look like a philosopher or logician (which you're obviously not, but most likely a high school senior or a college freshman or sophomore who thinks he's a philosopher because you saw a really cool YouTube video about atheism) you should attempt to understand the Christian argument.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485



« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2011, 02:54:41 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Actually, real Christian thought would suggest there is no atheism. Everyone worships gods, whether they worship the True God is the question.

And no Christian should seriously argue for theism. Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God. They try to get from the unmoved mover to the Gospel. Impossible and utterly un-Biblical.

Threads like these are good cause it keeps both camps busy and lets discussions of real Christian issues occur without the noise.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 03:00:56 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485



« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2011, 02:58:11 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.

The problem is you have a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to theological and philosophical language. To say that God is beyond existence means that we can't use the typical signifiers for what it means to 'exist.' It's not a matter of grammar, but of metaphysical presuppositions. You presuppose a naturalist universe and therefore attach definitions to certain words and refuse to allow any other definition for those words.

But what you've forgotten is that language is quite subjective, which is why dictionaries simply give a brief understanding of a word and not a comprehensive definition. While we can communicate in a substantial fashion, the fact is we can't communicate in a comprehensive fashion; that is to say, definitions are not objective. While there are boundaries to certain words, you're completely ignoring the fact that under a supernaturalist presupposition some words mean different things and are non-contradictory in their meaning, they merely contradict the naturalist understanding of the words.

So to say that God is incomprehensible isn't a logical contradiction at all, but quite reasonable - if God is infinite in all possible aspects and we are finite in all possible aspects, then God, being greater, will be incomprehensible to those of us who are smaller. That means that He can't be comprehended, which makes logically sense; humans have a limit to their cognitive functions, often based on their noetic environment. With this in mind, if God is infinite and supernatural, then He exists above and outside of our noetic environment, meaning that even if our cognitive functions were perfect and running at optimal capacity, He would still be incomprehensible because He is outside our noetic environment. If He existed within our noetic environment, it would mean that something is greater than God, meaning by definition He would no longer be God.

So before you ridicule things or attempt to look like a philosopher or logician (which you're obviously not, but most likely a high school senior or a college freshman or sophomore who thinks he's a philosopher because you saw a really cool YouTube video about atheism) you should attempt to understand the Christian argument.

If you ever bother to start down the Continental path at all, an interesting text:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Without-Being-Hors-Texte-Postmodernism/dp/0226505413

The Continental tradition is where ontology has been taken seriously and has come recently to the so-called "religious turn" and has thought about the general framing of the Divine or God within any sorta of ontological language at all.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485



« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2011, 02:59:52 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.

The problem is you have a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to theological and philosophical language. To say that God is beyond existence means that we can't use the typical signifiers for what it means to 'exist.' It's not a matter of grammar, but of metaphysical presuppositions. You presuppose a naturalist universe and therefore attach definitions to certain words and refuse to allow any other definition for those words.

But what you've forgotten is that language is quite subjective, which is why dictionaries simply give a brief understanding of a word and not a comprehensive definition. While we can communicate in a substantial fashion, the fact is we can't communicate in a comprehensive fashion; that is to say, definitions are not objective. While there are boundaries to certain words, you're completely ignoring the fact that under a supernaturalist presupposition some words mean different things and are non-contradictory in their meaning, they merely contradict the naturalist understanding of the words.

So to say that God is incomprehensible isn't a logical contradiction at all, but quite reasonable - if God is infinite in all possible aspects and we are finite in all possible aspects, then God, being greater, will be incomprehensible to those of us who are smaller. That means that He can't be comprehended, which makes logically sense; humans have a limit to their cognitive functions, often based on their noetic environment. With this in mind, if God is infinite and supernatural, then He exists above and outside of our noetic environment, meaning that even if our cognitive functions were perfect and running at optimal capacity, He would still be incomprehensible because He is outside our noetic environment. If He existed within our noetic environment, it would mean that something is greater than God, meaning by definition He would no longer be God.

So before you ridicule things or attempt to look like a philosopher or logician (which you're obviously not, but most likely a high school senior or a college freshman or sophomore who thinks he's a philosopher because you saw a really cool YouTube video about atheism) you should attempt to understand the Christian argument.

If you ever bother to start down the Continental path at all, an interesting text:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Without-Being-Hors-Texte-Postmodernism/dp/0226505413

The Continental tradition is where ontology has been taken seriously and has come recently to the so-called "religious turn" and has thought about the general framing of the Divine or God within any sorta of ontological language at all.



Btw, the first two reviews on amazon of the text are pretty decent.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2011, 03:12:37 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.

The problem is you have a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to theological and philosophical language. To say that God is beyond existence means that we can't use the typical signifiers for what it means to 'exist.' It's not a matter of grammar, but of metaphysical presuppositions. You presuppose a naturalist universe and therefore attach definitions to certain words and refuse to allow any other definition for those words.

But what you've forgotten is that language is quite subjective, which is why dictionaries simply give a brief understanding of a word and not a comprehensive definition. While we can communicate in a substantial fashion, the fact is we can't communicate in a comprehensive fashion; that is to say, definitions are not objective. While there are boundaries to certain words, you're completely ignoring the fact that under a supernaturalist presupposition some words mean different things and are non-contradictory in their meaning, they merely contradict the naturalist understanding of the words.

So to say that God is incomprehensible isn't a logical contradiction at all, but quite reasonable - if God is infinite in all possible aspects and we are finite in all possible aspects, then God, being greater, will be incomprehensible to those of us who are smaller. That means that He can't be comprehended, which makes logically sense; humans have a limit to their cognitive functions, often based on their noetic environment. With this in mind, if God is infinite and supernatural, then He exists above and outside of our noetic environment, meaning that even if our cognitive functions were perfect and running at optimal capacity, He would still be incomprehensible because He is outside our noetic environment. If He existed within our noetic environment, it would mean that something is greater than God, meaning by definition He would no longer be God.

So before you ridicule things or attempt to look like a philosopher or logician (which you're obviously not, but most likely a high school senior or a college freshman or sophomore who thinks he's a philosopher because you saw a really cool YouTube video about atheism) you should attempt to understand the Christian argument.

If you ever bother to start down the Continental path at all, an interesting text:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Without-Being-Hors-Texte-Postmodernism/dp/0226505413

The Continental tradition is where ontology has been taken seriously and has come recently to the so-called "religious turn" and has thought about the general framing of the Divine or God within any sorta of ontological language at all.



Right, but the problem I've had with the approach of ontotheology is that it inevitably leads to "weakness theology," which is nothing more than the deconstruction of God.

Rather, I think it's better to follow in the steps of the Fathers who said that while our language is inadequate in talking about God, we must use it in order to say something. Ontotheology, or the "weakness of God" movement goes too far in my opinion.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485



« Reply #30 on: February 18, 2011, 03:24:05 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.

The problem is you have a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to theological and philosophical language. To say that God is beyond existence means that we can't use the typical signifiers for what it means to 'exist.' It's not a matter of grammar, but of metaphysical presuppositions. You presuppose a naturalist universe and therefore attach definitions to certain words and refuse to allow any other definition for those words.

But what you've forgotten is that language is quite subjective, which is why dictionaries simply give a brief understanding of a word and not a comprehensive definition. While we can communicate in a substantial fashion, the fact is we can't communicate in a comprehensive fashion; that is to say, definitions are not objective. While there are boundaries to certain words, you're completely ignoring the fact that under a supernaturalist presupposition some words mean different things and are non-contradictory in their meaning, they merely contradict the naturalist understanding of the words.

So to say that God is incomprehensible isn't a logical contradiction at all, but quite reasonable - if God is infinite in all possible aspects and we are finite in all possible aspects, then God, being greater, will be incomprehensible to those of us who are smaller. That means that He can't be comprehended, which makes logically sense; humans have a limit to their cognitive functions, often based on their noetic environment. With this in mind, if God is infinite and supernatural, then He exists above and outside of our noetic environment, meaning that even if our cognitive functions were perfect and running at optimal capacity, He would still be incomprehensible because He is outside our noetic environment. If He existed within our noetic environment, it would mean that something is greater than God, meaning by definition He would no longer be God.

So before you ridicule things or attempt to look like a philosopher or logician (which you're obviously not, but most likely a high school senior or a college freshman or sophomore who thinks he's a philosopher because you saw a really cool YouTube video about atheism) you should attempt to understand the Christian argument.

If you ever bother to start down the Continental path at all, an interesting text:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Without-Being-Hors-Texte-Postmodernism/dp/0226505413

The Continental tradition is where ontology has been taken seriously and has come recently to the so-called "religious turn" and has thought about the general framing of the Divine or God within any sorta of ontological language at all.



Right, but the problem I've had with the approach of ontotheology is that it inevitably leads to "weakness theology," which is nothing more than the deconstruction of God.

Rather, I think it's better to follow in the steps of the Fathers who said that while our language is inadequate in talking about God, we must use it in order to say something. Ontotheology, or the "weakness of God" movement goes too far in my opinion.

Ummm that is exactly the diagnosis Heidegger gave to the problem of both Theology and Philosophy. His constant struggle against onto-theologizing is exactly the current which has matured especially among Catholic thinkers.

But, I agree with you about the Church Fathers. I am just saying if you want serious thought about ontology and theology the problems and the newer paths being taken other than "deconstructionism" as most people use the word (against I would love to sit with every person who uses this word and read just 10 pages with them of single water-shed text in that line of thought and see if they can even utter a coherent summation) and Thomism which dead on arrival and uninteresting.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2011, 03:29:53 PM »

There can be no debate between Orthodox Christianity and Atheism because dialogue is impossible as they speak completely different languages.

Uhh NO!.. You are using the same language, it's just that you apparently don't know how to properly use it or understand it. Even if you used equivalent words in other languages with the same equivalent meaning it would be entirely irrelevant. Making illogical statements of total self-collapsing contradictions isn't going to make them not self-contradicting statements of total self-collapse just because you say so. If you can't do the math to understand nothing is nothing more than nothing, or understand the definition of "nothing" and "Incomprehensible", don't bother putting those in to sentences. It totally makes your entire argument incoherent. And it seems as if some of you might be intentionally doing that as a method of debate. :/ And I mean this as constructive criticism btw.

The problem is you have a distinct lack of understanding when it comes to theological and philosophical language. To say that God is beyond existence means that we can't use the typical signifiers for what it means to 'exist.' It's not a matter of grammar, but of metaphysical presuppositions. You presuppose a naturalist universe and therefore attach definitions to certain words and refuse to allow any other definition for those words.

But what you've forgotten is that language is quite subjective, which is why dictionaries simply give a brief understanding of a word and not a comprehensive definition. While we can communicate in a substantial fashion, the fact is we can't communicate in a comprehensive fashion; that is to say, definitions are not objective. While there are boundaries to certain words, you're completely ignoring the fact that under a supernaturalist presupposition some words mean different things and are non-contradictory in their meaning, they merely contradict the naturalist understanding of the words.

So to say that God is incomprehensible isn't a logical contradiction at all, but quite reasonable - if God is infinite in all possible aspects and we are finite in all possible aspects, then God, being greater, will be incomprehensible to those of us who are smaller. That means that He can't be comprehended, which makes logically sense; humans have a limit to their cognitive functions, often based on their noetic environment. With this in mind, if God is infinite and supernatural, then He exists above and outside of our noetic environment, meaning that even if our cognitive functions were perfect and running at optimal capacity, He would still be incomprehensible because He is outside our noetic environment. If He existed within our noetic environment, it would mean that something is greater than God, meaning by definition He would no longer be God.

So before you ridicule things or attempt to look like a philosopher or logician (which you're obviously not, but most likely a high school senior or a college freshman or sophomore who thinks he's a philosopher because you saw a really cool YouTube video about atheism) you should attempt to understand the Christian argument.

If you ever bother to start down the Continental path at all, an interesting text:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Without-Being-Hors-Texte-Postmodernism/dp/0226505413

The Continental tradition is where ontology has been taken seriously and has come recently to the so-called "religious turn" and has thought about the general framing of the Divine or God within any sorta of ontological language at all.



Right, but the problem I've had with the approach of ontotheology is that it inevitably leads to "weakness theology," which is nothing more than the deconstruction of God.

Rather, I think it's better to follow in the steps of the Fathers who said that while our language is inadequate in talking about God, we must use it in order to say something. Ontotheology, or the "weakness of God" movement goes too far in my opinion.

Ummm that is exactly the diagnosis Heidegger gave to the problem of both Theology and Philosophy. His constant struggle against onto-theologizing is exactly the current which has matured especially among Catholic thinkers.

But, I agree with you about the Church Fathers. I am just saying if you want serious thought about ontology and theology the problems and the newer paths being taken other than "deconstructionism" as most people use the word (against I would love to sit with every person who uses this word and read just 10 pages with them of single water-shed text in that line of thought and see if they can even utter a coherent summation) and Thomism which dead on arrival and uninteresting.



I'm wondering if it has to be either/or. Can't it be a little of both/and?

For instance, the arguments I use aren't inherently Thomistic, but generally derive from one of the Church Fathers. If St. John of Damascus wrote today we'd call him a Thomist, but obviously he wasn't a Thomist or even an Aristotelean. So using arguments such as "first cause" or even teleological arguments are not intrinsically Thomist arguments, because they have their origins in the Church Fathers.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2011, 03:34:28 PM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2011, 03:34:50 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485



« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2011, 03:53:07 PM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.

Ever hear of hyperbole? You know I hold in high regard the intellectual project of Scholasticism in high regard from other posts. I spent at least a year in a school of philosophy primarily for Jesuits taking course work on Scholasticism.

Jesus wasn't a Scholastic. And He did not even begin to come close to anything resembling it and neither did St. Paul.

That's all I am saying. The Scholastic method a Christian does not make. Maybe some intellectuals have been brought into Christianity through, maybe. But you don't become a Christian that way and almost no one outside the Ivory Tower with a few working brain cells is going to be convinced by the "bullets" points of Scholasticism to become Christian.

Just as I believe that Heidegger's radical appropriation of phenomenology and hermeneutics provides a rather interesting and fruitful framework for examining the history of Christian thought and Patristic hermeneutics, I would never ever try to begin there to convince an "atheist" of anything. Maybe a committed and educated "rationalist" or "cognitive scientist" but even that is just idle chit chat and fun in the end.

There is the Gospel. Who do you believe Jesus is? Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

My pathetic attempt to do the latter and surround myself by those doing the latter much better than is the only "argument" really worth having. It's just a lot harder and often boring and painful than doing any of the above.

FWIW, once more with feeling, I love St. Thomas Aquinas.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2011, 04:04:03 PM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.

Ever hear of hyperbole? You know I hold in high regard the intellectual project of Scholasticism in high regard from other posts. I spent at least a year in a school of philosophy primarily for Jesuits taking course work on Scholasticism.

Jesus wasn't a Scholastic. And He did not even begin to come close to anything resembling it and neither did St. Paul.

That's all I am saying. The Scholastic method a Christian does not make. Maybe some intellectuals have been brought into Christianity through, maybe. But you don't become a Christian that way and almost no one outside the Ivory Tower with a few working brain cells is going to be convinced by the "bullets" points of Scholasticism to become Christian.

Just as I believe that Heidegger's radical appropriation of phenomenology and hermeneutics provides a rather interesting and fruitful framework for examining the history of Christian thought and Patristic hermeneutics, I would never ever try to begin there to convince an "atheist" of anything. Maybe a committed and educated "rationalist" or "cognitive scientist" but even that is just idle chit chat and fun in the end.

There is the Gospel. Who do you believe Jesus is? Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

My pathetic attempt to do the latter and surround myself by those doing the latter much better than is the only "argument" really worth having. It's just a lot harder and often boring and painful than doing any of the above.

FWIW, once more with feeling, I love St. Thomas Aquinas.
You posting history doesn't suggest hyperbole. And I am not suggesting you need to love Aquinas in order to be a christian. Re-read my post.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485



« Reply #35 on: February 18, 2011, 05:10:56 PM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.

Ever hear of hyperbole? You know I hold in high regard the intellectual project of Scholasticism in high regard from other posts. I spent at least a year in a school of philosophy primarily for Jesuits taking course work on Scholasticism.

Jesus wasn't a Scholastic. And He did not even begin to come close to anything resembling it and neither did St. Paul.

That's all I am saying. The Scholastic method a Christian does not make. Maybe some intellectuals have been brought into Christianity through, maybe. But you don't become a Christian that way and almost no one outside the Ivory Tower with a few working brain cells is going to be convinced by the "bullets" points of Scholasticism to become Christian.

Just as I believe that Heidegger's radical appropriation of phenomenology and hermeneutics provides a rather interesting and fruitful framework for examining the history of Christian thought and Patristic hermeneutics, I would never ever try to begin there to convince an "atheist" of anything. Maybe a committed and educated "rationalist" or "cognitive scientist" but even that is just idle chit chat and fun in the end.

There is the Gospel. Who do you believe Jesus is? Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

My pathetic attempt to do the latter and surround myself by those doing the latter much better than is the only "argument" really worth having. It's just a lot harder and often boring and painful than doing any of the above.

FWIW, once more with feeling, I love St. Thomas Aquinas.
You posting history doesn't suggest hyperbole. And I am not suggesting you need to love Aquinas in order to be a christian. Re-read my post.

Maybe I have my interwebz confused.

Again you assume too much. I was just saying ain't condemning his though or those who continue in that tradition as some act of human endeavor, just don't see how fruitful it is to preaching Christ crucified.

Preaching the Unmoved Mover just ain't what I understand as Christianity. Then again, it could just be my love for that ol' tyme religion.

And Papist, really do you think you are getting anywhere with Jackal? Not that the history of the internets would suggest that is ever the point or upshot of any thread ever posted.

WTH? I've spend countless hours probably in more futile internets.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #36 on: February 18, 2011, 05:56:02 PM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.

Ever hear of hyperbole? You know I hold in high regard the intellectual project of Scholasticism in high regard from other posts. I spent at least a year in a school of philosophy primarily for Jesuits taking course work on Scholasticism.

Jesus wasn't a Scholastic. And He did not even begin to come close to anything resembling it and neither did St. Paul.

That's all I am saying. The Scholastic method a Christian does not make. Maybe some intellectuals have been brought into Christianity through, maybe. But you don't become a Christian that way and almost no one outside the Ivory Tower with a few working brain cells is going to be convinced by the "bullets" points of Scholasticism to become Christian.

Just as I believe that Heidegger's radical appropriation of phenomenology and hermeneutics provides a rather interesting and fruitful framework for examining the history of Christian thought and Patristic hermeneutics, I would never ever try to begin there to convince an "atheist" of anything. Maybe a committed and educated "rationalist" or "cognitive scientist" but even that is just idle chit chat and fun in the end.

There is the Gospel. Who do you believe Jesus is? Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

My pathetic attempt to do the latter and surround myself by those doing the latter much better than is the only "argument" really worth having. It's just a lot harder and often boring and painful than doing any of the above.

FWIW, once more with feeling, I love St. Thomas Aquinas.
You posting history doesn't suggest hyperbole. And I am not suggesting you need to love Aquinas in order to be a christian. Re-read my post.

Maybe I have my interwebz confused.

Again you assume too much. I was just saying ain't condemning his though or those who continue in that tradition as some act of human endeavor, just don't see how fruitful it is to preaching Christ crucified.

Preaching the Unmoved Mover just ain't what I understand as Christianity. Then again, it could just be my love for that ol' tyme religion.
Of course, I agree with you. If I have misunderstood you, then I apologize.
And Papist, really do you think you are getting anywhere with Jackal? Not that the history of the internets would suggest that is ever the point or upshot of any thread ever posted.

WTH? I've spend countless hours probably in more futile internets.
No, I don't think that I am getting anywhere with Jackal, and I didn't expect that I would. However, I do know that others do read these forums, and if some one unaquianted with philosophy or critical thinking in general were to come accross these threads, I would want them to know that many atheistic arguments are shallow, still born ideas. Of course, I don't pretend to think that I am a great philosopher, but I can clearly see the weekness of the atheistic position.  I think that my purpose has been accomplished, at least weekly so; therefore,  I accept your wisdom that to continue this conversation with Jackal would be a waste of time.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 18, 2011, 10:34:22 PM »

Quote
I just did.. And you apparently can't fathom him either since you people think he's "incomprehensible" lol.. Do you people ever bother to define the words you use before you use them in a sentence?

Okay.  Let me show you how theologians use "incomprehensible."  I'm going to use an analogy.  Suppose, we are all two-dimensional creatures who can fathom only in two dimensional thinking.  Suppose God is three dimensional.  (does this analogy sound familiar  Wink )  There is no way we can comprehend three-dimensional understanding completely.  But God made Himself known to us through slices of two-dimensional understanding (what we call "grace.")  At some point, God even became two-dimensional so that we may partake of His three-dimensional glory.

Now, imagine our present scenario as three dimensional creatures.  God cannot be fathomed by any dimensional means of course, but God makes Himself known to us.  The means by which we can understand things higher than three dimensions is by mathematics.  When it comes to how one can comprehend God, we do so by prayer, fasting, charity, meditation, etc.  It's an all encompassing "spiritual exercise" if you will.

So by analogy, when theists say God is "incomprehensible" it doesn't mean that He doesn't exist (if that is even a proper word to use for God).  It simply means that we are unable to understand God fully, but God allows Himself to be understood through certain means, and in fact, He made Himself fully known through the incarnation, through Christ our Lord, so that we may transcend and grow in understanding God.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
UniversalistGuy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Posts: 90


« Reply #38 on: February 18, 2011, 11:22:55 PM »

I’m inquiring into Orthodoxy presupposing that God exists so this kind of exchange is of no help to me.  Accordingly, I voted “definitely not.”
Logged
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #39 on: February 19, 2011, 12:39:46 AM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.

Ever hear of hyperbole? You know I hold in high regard the intellectual project of Scholasticism in high regard from other posts. I spent at least a year in a school of philosophy primarily for Jesuits taking course work on Scholasticism.

Jesus wasn't a Scholastic. And He did not even begin to come close to anything resembling it and neither did St. Paul.

That's all I am saying. The Scholastic method a Christian does not make. Maybe some intellectuals have been brought into Christianity through, maybe. But you don't become a Christian that way and almost no one outside the Ivory Tower with a few working brain cells is going to be convinced by the "bullets" points of Scholasticism to become Christian.

Just as I believe that Heidegger's radical appropriation of phenomenology and hermeneutics provides a rather interesting and fruitful framework for examining the history of Christian thought and Patristic hermeneutics, I would never ever try to begin there to convince an "atheist" of anything. Maybe a committed and educated "rationalist" or "cognitive scientist" but even that is just idle chit chat and fun in the end.

There is the Gospel. Who do you believe Jesus is? Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

My pathetic attempt to do the latter and surround myself by those doing the latter much better than is the only "argument" really worth having. It's just a lot harder and often boring and painful than doing any of the above.

FWIW, once more with feeling, I love St. Thomas Aquinas.

You are correct that Scholasticism is not the Gospel, but you assume too much. I've seen too many people eventually come to Christ because intellectual barriers they had to the Gospel were broken down through philosophical argumentation to think that such a method is useless. Would Scholasticism come in handy with a coal miner who already believes in God? Not really. Would it come in handy with an atheist questioning his position and wondering if there's reason to believe there's more out there? Absolutely.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485



« Reply #40 on: February 19, 2011, 01:16:35 AM »

Again, the god of the Scholastics is Aristotle's God.
Actually, not true all. The images of God that the scholastic arguments paint are quite different from the view of Aristotle. Aristotle's god was part of the system. He was not utterly transcendant but under the same rules of the universe as you and I. Further, friendship with Aristotle's god was impossible. Finally, Aristotle's god did not created the universe from nothing, but coexists in time with it, as the ground of its existence and ability to change for all eternity.
The Scholastics, on the other hand, as Christians, had a very very different view of God. Though they agreed with Aristotle, that one can prove the existence of an unchanging, perfect, simple, good, personal god who is the first cause of all, the scholastics disgreed with Aristotle on many distinctive points. The scholastics were in diametric opposition to Aristotle in that they viewed God as utterly transcendent and beyond our stem of reality, beyond our "rules" so to speak. They professed the doctrine of creation, so that God created all created being from nothing, preexisting them. Because of God's absolute infinitude, his act of creation didn't add anymore goodness to the universe, because he is infinitely beyond it all; he is that which nothing greather than can be conceived. In fact, Anslem's scholastic argument (though invalid as a proof) is a clear demonstration of the fact that scholastics saw God in a very different light from Aristotle's god. Finally, the scholastics viewed God as intensely personal, so much so that he is tri-personal, and shares the Divine Life of the three Divine Persons with us (see my signature). This would have been impossible for the god of Aristotle who, as part of the system would be in the competition of being with others; his aliquidity would make him different by contrast to others. The scholastics, on the other hand, professed a God who, because of his absolute transcendent infinitude, could share his life with us without being diminished and without contradiction, because he is absolutely not in competition with our being. He simply is.
I would like to point out one more thing. For the scholastics, what can be known about God is very little. The attributes proven by reason are a small "slice" of who and what God is. Things like the incarnation, the Trinity, etc. are complete beyond the bounds of human reason and there is infinitely more about God that we can't know through human reason. Much about God has not even been given to us in revelation.
Finally, I would like to discuss the modern distaste for "Thomism" and scholasticism. Early modern philosophers, like Descarte, Hume, Kant, etc. rejected Thomism outright, but I don't think that they did so fairly. In fact, there is evidence (see Josef Pieper's work) that they never actually read the works of Aquinas, or if they did they gave Aquinas a quick and superficial reading. Instead of attacking what classical philosophy actually taught, they attacked what they thought classical philosophy was. Unfortunately, this seems to be the modern approach in any philosophy class at any university. Most of the professors don't truly understand Thomism and scholastic thought, but they sure love attacking straw men. I think it happens because it's "in style" and "with it" to attack Thomas, rather than to address the substance of his arguments. You will hear vague generalities like "Thomism has been discredited". My question would be, when? By whom? How was this done? But I doubt you will get a solid answer on that. It's much like the premise, "Science has discredited faith in God". When? By whom? How was this done? You see it's hard to even begin to refute these objections because no one knows what they really mean. They just sound "hip" and "with it". Popular "soundbites, if you will. I certainly hope that your distate for Thomism doesn't come from such a background, but I have to be honest, every time you use Aquinas as a whipping boy, you don't sound all that different from TheJackel.

Ever hear of hyperbole? You know I hold in high regard the intellectual project of Scholasticism in high regard from other posts. I spent at least a year in a school of philosophy primarily for Jesuits taking course work on Scholasticism.

Jesus wasn't a Scholastic. And He did not even begin to come close to anything resembling it and neither did St. Paul.

That's all I am saying. The Scholastic method a Christian does not make. Maybe some intellectuals have been brought into Christianity through, maybe. But you don't become a Christian that way and almost no one outside the Ivory Tower with a few working brain cells is going to be convinced by the "bullets" points of Scholasticism to become Christian.

Just as I believe that Heidegger's radical appropriation of phenomenology and hermeneutics provides a rather interesting and fruitful framework for examining the history of Christian thought and Patristic hermeneutics, I would never ever try to begin there to convince an "atheist" of anything. Maybe a committed and educated "rationalist" or "cognitive scientist" but even that is just idle chit chat and fun in the end.

There is the Gospel. Who do you believe Jesus is? Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

My pathetic attempt to do the latter and surround myself by those doing the latter much better than is the only "argument" really worth having. It's just a lot harder and often boring and painful than doing any of the above.

FWIW, once more with feeling, I love St. Thomas Aquinas.

You are correct that Scholasticism is not the Gospel, but you assume too much. I've seen too many people eventually come to Christ because intellectual barriers they had to the Gospel were broken down through philosophical argumentation to think that such a method is useless. Would Scholasticism come in handy with a coal miner who already believes in God? Not really. Would it come in handy with an atheist questioning his position and wondering if there's reason to believe there's more out there? Absolutely.


Too many? How many? And how does Scholasticism "break down barriers" to the Gospel? And how do you know they are Christians? (The are really rhetorical, you don't have to respond.)

And Scholasticism is pointless in convincing any educated, heart-hardened atheist.

Who knows how grace works, maybe having a non-convincing intellectual framework helps folks get over the vanities hardening their hearts to the truth and charity of Christ working within the PERSON working with them.

God knows I have had hide my nakedness of pride and vanity in leaves of intellectualism to make little steps toward what I knew in my heart was true, but was too embarrassed to accept. The Gospel is folly to the wisdom of this world.

In that case, thank God.

In my experience, changes of the heart are worked out in blood in meeting others who live in a manner that is striking and when struck willing enough to ask how they live out the way they do and trying it out for one's self.

But I get Papist's point. And let's admit most of this stuff here is cause we know stuff that others for the most part don't care about or need to and it is fun to slice and dice one another over minutia.

And if it feeds a troll or two, to feed the hungry is the Christian thing to do.

 

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #41 on: February 19, 2011, 02:04:14 AM »

Quote
Okay.  Let me show you how theologians use "incomprehensible."  I'm going to use an analogy.  Suppose, we are all two-dimensional creatures who can fathom only in two dimensional thinking.  Suppose God is three dimensional.  (does this analogy sound familiar  Wink )  There is no way we can comprehend three-dimensional understanding completely.  But God made Himself known to us through slices of two-dimensional understanding (what we call "grace.")  At some point, God even became two-dimensional so that we may partake of His three-dimensional glory.
Quote
incomprehensible [ˌɪnkɒmprɪˈhɛnsəbəl ɪnˌkɒm-]
adj
incapable of being understood; unintelligible

Improper use of the term "incomprehensible". And your entire analogy is irrelevant because you claim said deity to have zero dimensional value to which is made of nothing. You even made the illogical claim of "no parts".. So I guess it doesn't have a mind, any information what-so-ever, no memory, no-place to exist in, no abilities, no functions ect.

A proper analogy would be:

God is incomprehensible because he's, according to you,  made of nothing, with no parts, no dimensional value, outside of existence, out side of non-existence, out side of capacity while claiming nothing to be an entity, object, thing, or GOD is literally the dumbest and most pleading argument of desperation in order to maintain one's faith in GOD. This is of course incomprehensible... It's incomprehensible because that exactly the same thing as saying it doesn't exist, and that no understanding could ever exist while trying to argue that it exists. Your entire argument is incomprehensible, and incoherent. Your base of comprehension is only linked to your belief, or conceptual idea to which you have emotionally attached yourself to, and has no relevance to the object of that belief itself because the belief is not the object (god). It's like you are not comprehending how to properly use that term within the context of the rest of your argument. And that is probably because you keep telling yourself it does exist as if that will make it all better in order to try and circumvent logic and reason, or the actual meaning of what you claim to be GOD.. AKA the "NOTHING GOD!"

Quote
Suppose, we are all two-dimensional creatures who can fathom only in two dimensional thinking.

Irrelevant, and that would be untrue. We as 3D+1 beings can fathom more than 3D+1 thinking. And all dimensional beings under that context could share the same thinking that existence can't exist outside capacity. You might want to work on your analogies because they are terrible. Nothing comprehensibly doesn't exist, and can not be a person, place, object, substance, or thing. Learn Basic English please.

Quote
Now, imagine our present scenario as three dimensional creatures.  God cannot be fathomed by any dimensional means of course, but God makes Himself known to us.  The means by which we can understand things higher than three dimensions is by mathematics.  When it comes to how one can comprehend God, we do so by prayer, fasting, charity, meditation, etc.  It's an all encompassing "spiritual exercise" if you will.

Your analogy is a total fail. Funny that you have to resort to dimensional values and then collapse the entire analogy by asserting something with zero dimensional value. lol Seriously, are you even understanding the words, or analogies you are attempting to use? Basic English isn't hard, learn how to use it. And prayer, fasting, meditation ect is irrelevant to the subject.

Quote
It's an all encompassing "spiritual exercise" if you will.

Aparrently so is creating logical fallacies, circular nonsensical arguments, self-inventing context, self-inventing definitions of words already well defined, using social dogma, pleading for ignorance, and the act of being intentionally ignorant. :/


Quote
So by analogy, when theists say God is "incomprehensible" it doesn't mean that He doesn't exist (if that is even a proper word to use for God).  It simply means that we are unable to understand God fully, but God allows Himself to be understood through certain means, and in fact, He made Himself fully known through the incarnation, through Christ our Lord, so that we may transcend and grow in understanding God.

You can feel free to show evidence that proves any incarnation happened since you are trying to state it in fact form. What a load of crap.. empirical testable evidence or concede that you are making an assertion. Worst of all, you fail completely at understanding information theory and why this very argument of yours fails. Understanding requires information lol. All minds are slave to require information to even know they themselves exist!.. All things that exist must have informational value, structure, and complexity. And I really get a giggle out of this when you claim your GOD to be made of nothing!






« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 02:28:07 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #42 on: February 19, 2011, 02:39:05 AM »

Who do you believe Jesus is?

A Man like many others. Maybe even a great man. Perhaps a man with a name that is easy to remember as the brand name Nike.

Quote
Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

No..

Because he told me that I could pray to have a mountain cast into the ocean, and it would be done. Jesus lied because Wild Cat mountain still remains where it is. But you could of course say that I don't have Faith, and thus it could not be done.. However, I can test this none-the-less:

Quote
(Matthew 21:21-22 NAS) And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen.  "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."

Do you believe the words he spoke? It seems like you have the faith to cast Wild Cat mountain into the ocean. You can feel free to demonstrate for us the validity of his words, or the truth you claim to be Jesus Christ as a GOD. Seems to me that all of you faithfuls should be entirely capable of demonstrating this. I will myself instantly convert if you could be so kind, as to pray, and have Wild Cat Mountain tossed into the Sea by 6:00 AM Eastern Time tomorrow before I get there for my snowboarding trip.
Quote
Theist punch line:

I don't have to do anything to prove to you of the truth of Jesus Christ. TADA!

Well of course you don't, how else are you going to maintain a Carl Sagan Dragon, and a blind faith?


.. Oh but not so fast:
Quote
(John 14:13-14 NAB) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.

In the Lord name of Jesus Christ I ask of you to make me Omniscient for as long as I wish to be. And done so within in the next 3 seconds please and thank you kind Lord.  




« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 03:05:15 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2011, 02:45:30 AM »

This is about as bad as you claiming to have a moral code that says killing is wrong without any justification.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #44 on: February 19, 2011, 02:56:51 AM »

Correction:

Quote
God is incomprehensible because he's, according to you,  made of nothing, with no parts, no dimensional value, outside of existence, out side of non-existence, out side of capacity while claiming nothing to be an entity, object, thing, or GOD. This is literally the dumbest and(toning it down to be nicer) most pleading argument of desperation in order to maintain one's faith in GOD. :/



This is about as bad as you claiming to have a moral code that says killing is wrong without any justification.

Wrong!

1)  morality is relative. Thus I can have my own moral code. Do try harder.

2) Your comment is entirely irrelevant to the argument. You might want to work on your deflecting debating skills.  I am demonstrating why I don't follow his word... Does he speak truthfully or not?

Well since I am not omniscient now, I have refuted his own words to be equivalent to lying . Thus is perfectly justified for me not to follow his word. Nothing like the scientific method eh? An empirical testing of faith, truth, and of GOD. Just imagine, you could save the world in a single instant, and by such a simple demonstration. You might even achieve world peace! World "LOVE" even!...  
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 03:19:53 AM by TheJackel » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485



« Reply #45 on: February 19, 2011, 03:55:40 AM »

Who do you believe Jesus is?

A Man like many others. Maybe even a great man. Perhaps a man with a name that is easy to remember as the brand name Nike.

Quote
Are you willing to live the words He spoke?

No..

Then until you encounter someone or have some revelation (of these I am doubtful) who / which embodies the truth for you, endless discussion on the most fine points of the needles of a tree ain't going to get you to see the tree much less the forest.




Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #46 on: February 19, 2011, 04:14:29 AM »

Quote

Then until you encounter someone or have some revelation (of these I am doubtful) who / which embodies the truth for you, endless discussion on the most fine points of the needles of a tree ain't going to get you to see the tree much less the forest.

Uhh, posting an incoherent circular argument did nothing to address the post.

Quote
Then until you encounter someone

I encounter people all the time who embody truths to me. My math teacher correctly taught me that nothing isn't anything... Good to know.

Quote
have some revelation

(rĕv'ə-lā'shən) pronunciation
n.

         1. The act of revealing or disclosing.
         2. Something revealed, especially a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized.

I revealed and disclosed Jesus as a liar. This may however be something not previously known or realized by you. And by your reply, I have had a revelation that you are likely deflecting from the argument to post nonsense like this to which is entirely irrelevant to the argument posted.

Quote
endless discussion on the most fine points of the needles of a tree ain't going to get you to see the tree much less the forest.

Can't see nothing, or a tree of nothing.. Thus the forest of nothing is equally and truthfully not something to which can be seen since it isn't anything at all.








« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 04:15:05 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #47 on: February 19, 2011, 04:15:18 AM »


1)  morality is relative. Thus I can have my own moral code. Do try harder.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....*looks at your post again* wait YOU'RE serious?! HAHAHAHAHA.

"Why am I a relativist? Well look at those moral values, those are relative! Why? Well cultures differ on what is right and wrong, and people do to! In fact, scientific values, reality, art, and basically everything else are all relative. All in all, I am a relativist because relativism is true. Wait..."

Gotta love solipsism...
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #48 on: February 19, 2011, 05:00:18 AM »


1)  morality is relative. Thus I can have my own moral code. Do try harder.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....*looks at your post again* wait YOU'RE serious?! HAHAHAHAHA.

"Why am I a relativist? Well look at those moral values, those are relative! Why? Well cultures differ on what is right and wrong, and people do to! In fact, scientific values, reality, art, and basically everything else are all relative. All in all, I am a relativist because relativism is true. Wait..."

Gotta love solipsism...

That's because energy can do that.. they run on the same basic properties and principles lol

There are 3 laws that govern everything and they are the 3 laws of energy to which can lead to complex... It's also the only 3 laws that can "do work or be a source cause".

Positive
Negative
Neutral

There can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral:

Action
Reaction
Process
choice
decision
phenomenon
emerging property
environment
Feedback
motion
moral
ethic
thought
Idea
emotion
Selection
Natural Selection
Adaptation
response
Stimuli
system
Piece of information
existence (negative not existing)
Capacity (negative capacity impossible to exist)
time
mathematical equation, or solution
Answer
image
perception
ability
function
sate of being (negative state means no being is existent)
place (negative place doesn't exist, or can't be a place)
Oscillation
inertia
work
belief
opinion
ect...


Energy has 3 properties:

Positive
Negative
Neutral

Ethics or morality has 3 properties:

Positive
Negative
Neutral


Do the math.. energy =/= information and thus ='s all information to which ethical or moral principles are based on.. Anything of complex, especially in moral behaviors can be considered relative in nature just because of those 3 basic laws of energy/information that govern everything to which includes consciousness itself! Again you have a complete and total failure to comprehend information theory! Things can be relative in nature while other things can not be.. Such as the 3 laws lol. Your relativism ends there! Do try harder lol!

Gotta love a solipsist failure without informational value or the 3 laws of existence, and the substance of in the form of energy.



Is it just me, or am I the only one not contradicting himself or self-collapsing? It seems like my argument is the only one that has any sort of coherency and consistency here. Just replying to my post would be equal to you slapping yourself in the face because you will have to adhere to information theory in order to make the reply..

Good luck being relative to that in your responses Aposphet Wink Hmm.. to choose between replaying (+) or not replying (-).. Hmm what benefit would you gain in either case? + or - ? .. Oh how complex this discussion is getting Wink
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 05:23:48 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #49 on: February 19, 2011, 06:16:27 AM »

double post deleted.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 06:17:33 AM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #50 on: February 19, 2011, 11:39:49 AM »

Quote
Okay.  Let me show you how theologians use "incomprehensible."  I'm going to use an analogy.  Suppose, we are all two-dimensional creatures who can fathom only in two dimensional thinking.  Suppose God is three dimensional.  (does this analogy sound familiar  Wink )  There is no way we can comprehend three-dimensional understanding completely.  But God made Himself known to us through slices of two-dimensional understanding (what we call "grace.")  At some point, God even became two-dimensional so that we may partake of His three-dimensional glory.
Quote
incomprehensible [ˌɪnkɒmprɪˈhɛnsəbəl ɪnˌkɒm-]
adj
incapable of being understood; unintelligible

Improper use of the term "incomprehensible". And your entire analogy is irrelevant because you claim said deity to have zero dimensional value to which is made of nothing. You even made the illogical claim of "no parts".. So I guess it doesn't have a mind, any information what-so-ever, no memory, no-place to exist in, no abilities, no functions ect.

A proper analogy would be:

God is incomprehensible because he's, according to you,  made of nothing, with no parts, no dimensional value, outside of existence, out side of non-existence, out side of capacity while claiming nothing to be an entity, object, thing, or GOD is literally the dumbest and most pleading argument of desperation in order to maintain one's faith in GOD. This is of course incomprehensible... It's incomprehensible because that exactly the same thing as saying it doesn't exist, and that no understanding could ever exist while trying to argue that it exists. Your entire argument is incomprehensible, and incoherent. Your base of comprehension is only linked to your belief, or conceptual idea to which you have emotionally attached yourself to, and has no relevance to the object of that belief itself because the belief is not the object (god). It's like you are not comprehending how to properly use that term within the context of the rest of your argument. And that is probably because you keep telling yourself it does exist as if that will make it all better in order to try and circumvent logic and reason, or the actual meaning of what you claim to be GOD.. AKA the "NOTHING GOD!"

Quote
Suppose, we are all two-dimensional creatures who can fathom only in two dimensional thinking.

Irrelevant, and that would be untrue. We as 3D+1 beings can fathom more than 3D+1 thinking. And all dimensional beings under that context could share the same thinking that existence can't exist outside capacity. You might want to work on your analogies because they are terrible. Nothing comprehensibly doesn't exist, and can not be a person, place, object, substance, or thing. Learn Basic English please.

Quote
Now, imagine our present scenario as three dimensional creatures.  God cannot be fathomed by any dimensional means of course, but God makes Himself known to us.  The means by which we can understand things higher than three dimensions is by mathematics.  When it comes to how one can comprehend God, we do so by prayer, fasting, charity, meditation, etc.  It's an all encompassing "spiritual exercise" if you will.

Your analogy is a total fail. Funny that you have to resort to dimensional values and then collapse the entire analogy by asserting something with zero dimensional value. lol Seriously, are you even understanding the words, or analogies you are attempting to use? Basic English isn't hard, learn how to use it. And prayer, fasting, meditation ect is irrelevant to the subject.

Quote
It's an all encompassing "spiritual exercise" if you will.

Aparrently so is creating logical fallacies, circular nonsensical arguments, self-inventing context, self-inventing definitions of words already well defined, using social dogma, pleading for ignorance, and the act of being intentionally ignorant. :/


Quote
So by analogy, when theists say God is "incomprehensible" it doesn't mean that He doesn't exist (if that is even a proper word to use for God).  It simply means that we are unable to understand God fully, but God allows Himself to be understood through certain means, and in fact, He made Himself fully known through the incarnation, through Christ our Lord, so that we may transcend and grow in understanding God.

You can feel free to show evidence that proves any incarnation happened since you are trying to state it in fact form. What a load of crap.. empirical testable evidence or concede that you are making an assertion. Worst of all, you fail completely at understanding information theory and why this very argument of yours fails. Understanding requires information lol. All minds are slave to require information to even know they themselves exist!.. All things that exist must have informational value, structure, and complexity. And I really get a giggle out of this when you claim your GOD to be made of nothing!

Look, I'm trying to be irenic towards you.  I was hoping I'd receive the same courtesy.  There are ways to disagree without being disagreeable.  But if you're going to degenerate this discussion into insults against my character, I'm not going to continue this with you.  If you're genuinely trying to gain insight into our thinking, then act like it.

Now, can you actually fully comprehend 4, 5, or 11 dimensional figures?  Can you comprehend vast infinite multiverse?  Can you even possibly comprehend what atoms, subatomic particles, quarks, etc. exactly look like?  Or can you in fact fully comprehend string theory?

At some point there are things that are incomprehensible.  Incomprehensible can also mean very difficult to understand.  Does not always have to mean failure to understand.  I don't think I'm using it incorrectly at this point.

Theological language has an inadequacy in describing what is considered mysterious.  Even analogies that one tries to make (like what I made) can be inadequate at some point.  It's only there to try to help understand how we think.

And to be quite honest, you're using nothing incorrectly.  God is not made out of nothing.  God is not made out of anything here, but certainly, theological language claims quite the opposite on what God is.  God is something, and we are the ones who are truly "nothing" in comparison to God.  This has been the consistent use of "nothing" in theological language, that it describes the insignificance of all of creation, not God.  In this vast universe alone, our whole solar system can be considered as "nothing."
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 11:44:00 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #51 on: February 19, 2011, 01:55:14 PM »

Quote

Look, I'm trying to be irenic towards you.  I was hoping I'd receive the same courtesy.  There are ways to disagree without being disagreeable.  But if you're going to degenerate this discussion into insults against my character, I'm not going to continue this with you.  If you're genuinely trying to gain insight into our thinking, then act like it.

All I am doing is being direct towards you, and addressing problems with your arguments in order to get some kind of honest discourse out of you. Of course there is going to be disagreements here, especially when people start inventing incoherent arguments that improperly use terms to which make their arguments self-collapsing and a self-contradiction. I can't help you there, no can I make your arguments make any sense when you refuse to understand them.
Quote
Now, can you actually fully comprehend 4, 5, or 11 dimensional figures? 

Sure can:

In string theory a string is a 1 dimensional object to where time itself is considered a spatial dimensional plane. Here you can have 4 dimensional objects and multiple universes side by side:

4D<--- 3D<--- 2D<--- 1D ---> 2D -->3D--> 4D

You could have a potential of an 8 Dimensional object to an infinite number dimensional object (existence) with more than one Universe. Things with 11 dimensions are only mathematical theoreticals.. But you can also create logical fallacies with mathematics too.. But not really relevant if such number of dimensions exist or not because they can never defy the law of capacity. Even in string theory the lowest you can get is a 1 Dimensional object before you reach point of convergence because you can't regress to a negative capacity.
Quote

Can you comprehend vast infinite multiverse?  Can you even possibly comprehend what atoms, subatomic particles, quarks, etc. exactly look like?  Or can you in fact fully comprehend string theory?

Yes I can:

Quote
In an infinite volume there is no beginning.. Any point you choose will be relative to only that point. And there is no literal beginning or end.. If you make two points X, and Y then you have made to relative points to which are thus finite unless you specify them to be infinitely distant from each other.And since they are both relative they are not literally a beginning or end because they are still apart of the infinite volume

Finite distances:

Quote
<-----------------------------Infinite distance--->.<------------------Finite (specified distance)------->.<----------------infinite distance---------------------------->

Infinite distances:
Quote
<--------infinite distance------->.<----------------------Infinite distance--------------------------->.<-------------infinite distance---------------->.<-------------Infinite distance----->

If you take the relative points out

<--------------------------------------------------------infinite distance-------------------------------------------------------------------->



 I could even infinitely add more relative points with infinite distances because the nature of an infinite volume states that you can even have infinite volumes within an infinite volume.

example:

Quote
A hotel with infinite number of rooms with each room having an infinite volume. However, you could never have a negative volume or capacity. Thus ground state is the base volume substance. Or the substance of the volume itself.

Another example can be parallel lines:

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

All these lines can be infinitely long. and infinite in number. And each line could represent a universe because our own Universe is measured to be flat. So you get back to the hotel example above.


And since no-capacity can exist, there can only ever be an infinite volume of capacity without beginning or an end... Hence, negative spatial capacity is a literal impossibility. A negative object, thing, or place can not exist by definition alone. You can't contain anything in a negative capacity!


Quote
At some point there are things that are incomprehensible.  Incomprehensible can also mean very difficult to understand.  Does not always have to mean failure to understand.  I don't think I'm using it incorrectly at this point.

That's trying to play a GOD of the Gaps argument as if it's even worth anything as an argument. Well, there will always be gaps in human knowledge between ground state and the infinity. But we do know what Ground state means, and why capacity has always existed simply because the opposite doesn't exist and can't exist. This applies to the energy scale I gave you earlier to which I doubt you even bothered to look at..


1) Scale:
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

2) You, me, and everything else on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale..as also demonstrated above under (scale):

http://talklikeaphysicist.com/2009/energy-scale-of-over-100-orders-of-magnitude/


Theological language has an inadequacy in describing what is considered mysterious.  Even analogies that one tries to make (like what I made) can be inadequate at some point.  It's only there to try to help understand how we think.


Not really relevant.. Capacity and the basic laws I provided above to which include information theory will equally govern that entire argument regardless of what mystery you think is out there. Nothing will never be a mystery object, thing, substance, or entity because it doesn't exist.


Quote
And to be quite honest, you're using nothing incorrectly.

No, I am using the term properly. I am using it in a fashion to show why it's a self-collapsing contradiction. Nothing doesn't exist and that is proper use of the term..

There are two ways nothing is used.. The scientific way and the way in which you describe the absents of something you expect to be there. In either case, there can never literally be nothing.. Even an empty cup is not empty, you can't poor out the space within the cup. Literal zero doesn't exist as an existing object, person, place or thing.

Quote

  God is not made out of nothing. 

Welcome back to logical thinking.. If your GOD exists it can not be made of nothing, have no complexity, no structure, no-form, no substance, or no-cause.. Especially if you want to state it as being conscious, self-aware, intelligent, or posses knowledge. It's bound to the basic rules of existence to which itself can not write, create, or circumvent. It's an emerging property like the rest of us at best. This however doesn't mean it couldn't have set off the big bang.. It just means you need to drop the logical fallacies and make it actually plausible.


Quote

 God is not made out of anything here, but certainly,

Please make up your mind and stop contradicting yourself :/ It's getting rather silly o.O

Quote
God is something, and we are the ones who are truly "nothing" in comparison to God. 

We are truly nothing in comparison to the rest of existence too.. Not really a relevant argument. Nor would either side of that argument translate to no purpose or purpose lost.


Quote
This has been the consistent use of "nothing" in theological language, that it describes the insignificance of all of creation, not God.
 

Again irrelevant argument

Quote
In this vast universe alone, our whole solar system can be considered as "nothing."

Not nothing, it exists and thus has purpose just because it exists. If it didn't exist it would be total complete irrelevance.. Yes, our solar system could vanish and have no-ill effect on the rest of existence. It just means your existence is not required or really relevant to existence itself as a whole. same goes for anything of complex higher than ground state.
[/quote]
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,255

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #52 on: February 19, 2011, 03:23:00 PM »

lol you guys belief in nothing lol and the information theory of that believing makes me lol you don't even know how things work especially in the Bible where the GODmonster killed everyone lol you guys are dumb! lol

Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #53 on: February 19, 2011, 04:37:42 PM »

*sigh*

A part of me wants to go through and debunk everything you just said, but the other part of me thinks its a waste of time. I'm going to choose the later.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485



« Reply #54 on: February 19, 2011, 04:47:13 PM »

lol you guys belief in nothing lol and the information theory of that believing makes me lol you don't even know how things work especially in the Bible where the GODmonster killed everyone lol you guys are dumb! lol



This is like the Living Bible of late stage trollogetics.

Well done!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 19, 2011, 05:05:11 PM »

Your insistence on only one use or meaning of terms like "nothing" and "incomprehensible" not realistic.

First, your use of "comprehending" infinity is actually laughable.  Mathematical understanding only draws symbols and numbers of theoretical ideas that one cannot adequately draw a picture of in their heads as a whole.  Therefore, if it becomes difficult to describe in that manner, it just shows how incomprehensible something can be.

The word "nothing" can also mean many things.  But when I say we are nothing and God is something, that doesn't mean God has to obey rules of present existence (when I analogized our nothingness to God in comparison to the universe, that doesn't mean God is the universe, nor does He exist in a manner like creation does).  Your insistence on this is also not realistic, and in fact it's a level of close-mindedness on your part, not as a way of understanding how theists think.  You try to enforce materialistic understanding into spirituality, which are two completely different issues.

Because of a paucity of language, what we consider inadequate to describe, you consider totally non-existent.  But when we describe Him in analogical terms, you consider totality of existence.  It is very black and white for you it seems because you have hard-wired yourself only to look at things within what exists in creation, not transcending creation.  This paragraph pretty much sums up this whole debate we're having.  I hope we move beyond this if you possibly can.

(I can see why the early Christians were accused of "atheism" by the pagans, since they too were too strung up on creation and not beyond it).
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 05:20:05 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #56 on: February 19, 2011, 11:17:43 PM »

I totally forgot to talk about the "god of the gaps" argument you're making against me.  I never made a god of the gaps argument.  God of the gaps stated that since there are things we don't know about the universe, God made it.  I said there are things that will be always hard to understand in the universe, but it seems mathematics have proven a good tool to help understand at least symbolically those "incomprehensible" parts of existence.  If anything, I've proven a "mathematics of the gaps."

My belief in God does not rest on any gap in human knowledge.  If anything, my appreciation for Him grows the more we know about creation.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #57 on: February 19, 2011, 11:20:58 PM »

lol you guys belief in nothing lol and the information theory of that believing makes me lol you don't even know how things work especially in the Bible where the GODmonster killed everyone lol you guys are dumb! lol

Coherency might help your argument Wink

Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #58 on: February 19, 2011, 11:29:28 PM »

Quote
The word "nothing" can also mean many things.  But when I say we are nothing and God is something, that doesn't mean God has to obey rules of present existence (when I analogized our nothingness to God in comparison to the universe, that doesn't mean God is the universe, nor does He exist in a manner like creation does).  Your insistence on this is also not realistic, and in fact it's a level of close-mindedness on your part, not as a way of understanding how theists think.  You try to enforce materialistic understanding into spirituality, which are two completely different issues.

Not really relevant to the claim I was addressing lol... "God isn't made of anything".. AKA the argument for nothing to be GOD. I understand how the term "nothing" is used. Your problems is that you don't know how to properly use the term. And I sure can place materialist rules to it because I just did! Nothing things don't exist lol.. 0 dimensional objects don't exist Wink Your failure to comprehend that is not my problem. This isn't closed mindedness, this is knowing what the words I use actually mean. The English language is not that difficult to understand.

My insistence is entirely realistic.. Try making a reply or communicate without information lol.. I would like to see your supposed god attempt to reply and communicate without information. It's Not going to happen. Like I said, your very own replies to this argument is like shooting yourself in the foot. Do try harder.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 11:37:21 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #59 on: February 19, 2011, 11:39:08 PM »

*sigh*

A part of me wants to go through and debunk everything you just said, but the other part of me thinks its a waste of time. I'm going to choose the later.

Go for it lol.. The very reply you just made just totally collapsed any argument you could possibly make. You can't circumvent information theory Aposphet, You can have fun trying..

You can start with the positive, negative, neutral post above. Wink

« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 11:42:10 PM by TheJackel » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #60 on: February 19, 2011, 11:46:57 PM »

Prove that immaterial === nothing.

(And don't go off on zero-dimensional objects again. Dimensionality is a material property, so an immaterial God does not have dimensions—not zero, nor three, nor five thousand. Non-dimensional [or we could say "undefinable", from a material standpoint] and zero-dimensional are different things, just as "zero" and "undefined" are completely different things in mathematics.)
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 11:53:36 PM by bogdan » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #61 on: February 20, 2011, 12:25:53 AM »

Prove that immaterial === nothing.

Immaterial is the absents of substance. Learn how to define the term. No substance = nothing.. Things can not exist and be made of "nothing". Do you even know where the term immaterial came from or what it's original intended purpose was? It was to describe things not seemingly made of solid matter.. AkA heat vs a brick.
Quote
Immaterial:
 1. not consisting of matter

It's common use in this context was to describe energy.. A key term used by religion to describe spirit energy when they didn't know that what they are made of is in fact energy. Or that matter was made of energy.  Well, many years later we came to understand the 4 stages of matter to figure out that energy is the same substance to which matter is made from. So this term came about before people understood that nothing can not be a substance.

They way you used it is in the literal context of it's meaning. "AKA not made of anything".. Anything you think is made of nothing isn't anything at all, but rather just a logical fallacy or Idea in your head. The idea itself is a material physical pattern of energy, but the object of that idea can not exist while being argued to not be made of anything. Thus something made of nothing is nothing more than nothing. Total complete irrelevance!

Quote
Dimensionality is a material property, so an immaterial God does not have dimensions—not zero, nor three, nor five thousand.

An object can not exist without dimensional value.. Again you are applying a nothing attribute to your GOD.. GOOD to know because nothing objects don't exist.

Quote
Non-dimensional [or we could say "undefinable", from a material standpoint] and zero-dimensional are different things

Wrong, they are exactly the same thing lol.



Quote
, just as "zero" and "undefined" are completely different things in mathematics.

To say something is "undefinable" also means you can not define it at all. You can't call it anything, or even call it a GOD. again another attribute to nothing. Literal zero is also undefinable because it can't exist. There couldn't be anything there to define, and that is why it's a logical fallacy lol. It's simple son, no capacity (dimension value) equal no-existence..

Tell me, Where does your GOD exist? It's going to need a place of containment, especially if you think it's an individual entity.. Boundaries would have to be made apparent in order to have separation of individuals. The only thing that could ever be called GOD would be the sum total of Existence itself. Everything to which could or does exist would be slave to require it.. Thus existence itself is the first eternal cause! Information/energy is the substance of existence and the cause of all causation.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 12:34:30 AM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #62 on: February 20, 2011, 01:17:56 AM »

Dear Papist,

I think by now, I suppose we already gained all the insight we need.  There's nothing new really that needs discussing.  Many others, including me, will keep repeating themselves.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 01:18:02 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #63 on: February 20, 2011, 01:39:55 AM »

This was a very interesting argument posted by someone else:
Quote
Wang Bi once tried to describe the totality of things (Tao) as that which is without form (wu xing). He argued that form implies a limit, and limit requires differentiation. As the totality of things is limitless it contains all things and thus cannot be differentiated from any one thing.  Wang Bi does go on to point out that anything which has no form must also have no name (wu ming), as name (ming) requires form (xing). As the ancient Tao Te Ching puts it: "The Tao that can be described in language is not the constant Tao, the name that can be given is not the constant name". No chance for God.(of that kind)


AKA Nothing can not be defined as a person, place, or thing Wink
Quote
First, your use of "comprehending" infinity is actually laughable.  Mathematical understanding only draws symbols and numbers of theoretical ideas that one cannot adequately draw a picture of in their heads as a whole.  Therefore, if it becomes difficult to describe in that manner, it just shows how incomprehensible something can be.

Incorrect. It becomes completely comprehensible knowing capacity can not exist in the form of zero-capacity or a negative capacity. Thus infinite volumes are entirely comprehensible to be infinite volumes. I can comprehend the fact I could draw a line infinitely. I can comprehend that no-capacity = no capacity to exist lol.

So again.. "Where" does your GOD exist again? Please tell me you aren't going to say "no-where" lol.. If you say everywhere, then all things are god.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 01:49:03 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #64 on: February 20, 2011, 01:50:42 AM »

Dear Papist,

I think by now, I suppose we already gained all the insight we need.  There's nothing new really that needs discussing.  Many others, including me, will keep repeating themselves.

Yep, you do keep repeating yourself while repetitively ignoring arguments you don't properly address.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,153


WWW
« Reply #65 on: February 20, 2011, 02:26:43 AM »

I wish I could debate Roman Catholics as effectively as TheJackel.   Roll Eyes

Unfortunately, debating atheists is off the table although I understand where they're trying to come from in that they try to quantify what Orthodox Christians deem quantifiable and that modern science/reason (gifts of Roman Catholicism) is sufficient enough for them.

Carry on....   Smiley
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,153


WWW
« Reply #66 on: February 20, 2011, 03:02:04 AM »

I wish I could debate Roman Catholics as effectively as TheJackel.   Roll Eyes

Unfortunately, debating atheists is off the table although I understand where they're trying to come from in that they try to quantify what Orthodox Christians deem unquantifiable and that modern science/reason (gifts of Roman Catholicism) is sufficient enough for them.

Carry on....   Smiley

Oops.   angel
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #67 on: February 20, 2011, 03:26:45 AM »

Dear Papist,

I think by now, I suppose we already gained all the insight we need.  There's nothing new really that needs discussing.  Many others, including me, will keep repeating themselves.

Yep, you do keep repeating yourself while repetitively ignoring arguments you don't properly address.

What exactly did I ignore?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,255

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #68 on: February 20, 2011, 03:54:21 AM »

So, basically, things in the material world require materiality to exist. Thus, anything immaterial doesn't exist? How does that make sense?
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #69 on: February 20, 2011, 05:08:52 AM »

So, basically, things in the material world require materiality to exist. Thus, anything immaterial doesn't exist? How does that make sense?

A thing you claim to be made of nothing wouldn't have any value!.. there would be no informational value what-so-ever!.. Makes total sense. Nothing can not be a person, place, or thing. Just because you can string words together to form a fallacy doesn't make the fallacy possible.

Information theory states that for an object to exist it must have informational value and structure as an object. All things are made of information, contain information, and give off information. Information =/= energy (material physicality). saying your GOD isn't made of anything is also saying that it contains no informational value, structure, or complexity. And this is really funny when theists want to claim their GOD to be Omniscient, especially when they typically do not comprehend information is the substance to anything that exists, or could exist. without informational value or the capacity to contain information, there can only be utter irrelevance of what that which you try to claim to be made of nothing!. And your argument entirely ignores why consciousness requires information to be conscious. Consciousness has cause, and it can not create that which itself is slave to require in order to exist.

So all you have is an informational idea of a GOD, while claiming the Object (god itself) has no informational value or substance. Any value you think it has only exist metaphorically on paper (as an idea), but not as an actual object. Thus saying it's made of nothing is removing any and all potential informational value from the object you are trying to claim exists.

It's a total self-collapse.. Things can not be made of nothing!

Quote
Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything: no thing. Colloquially, the concept is often used to indicate the lack of anything relevant or significant, or to describe a particularly unimportant thing, event, or object. It is contrasted with something and everything. Nothingness is the state of being nothing,[1] the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing.

----

Quote
1) I =: reference to all information that gives I an Identity, substance, dimension, value, an awareness, an existence, an intelligence, or a consciousness.

2) Information =: the very core cause to everything, and to which also gives things like consciousness value, existence, substance, complexity, structure, ability, intelligence, knowledge, awareness, the ability to choose, the ability to make decisions, the ability to think, the ability to do, have free will (to some extent), or to be what it is entirely. Without it, there can seem to be no possible existence, and that is impossible since nothing can not literally ever exist under literal context.

3) Energy =/= Information: Both substance and value. Two sides of the same coin. It's the literal source to all person's, places, and things. It's all matter, energy, or things with mass. It's every dimensional value. it's the core to all attributes, phenomenon, and processes! It is the sum total of all existence.

4) All things begin from: Ground state, Zero-point energy, or vacuum energy. Anything less would have zero informational value, Zero dimensional value, No capacity to exist, or no literal value what-so-ever.
Quote
    * Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern.[citation needed] Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind.

--

Quote
   ** Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information. In other words, it can be said that information in this sense is something potentially perceived as representation, though not created or presented for that purpose. For example, Gregory Bateson defines "information" as a "difference that makes a difference".

Thus Postive, negative, and neutral is the only base pattern required for the influence and transformation of patterns into complex. Such as consciousness. Thus no thought, idea, choice, decision, path, creation, ability, process, system ect could exist without them.  A GOD could not reply, act, respond, know anything, know of it's own existence, or even communicate without information and those 3 laws that govern it all. Information theory can not be circumvented!
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 05:41:23 AM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #70 on: February 20, 2011, 05:45:17 AM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend) 

« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 06:07:26 AM by TheJackel » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #71 on: February 20, 2011, 06:24:28 AM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend)  

I know that my God Lives, and that His Love is infinitely greater than this blasphemy of yours.
Like all of us, your life is just a blip on the radar screen of history. Don't waste it on hatred my friend. Only what is turned into Love in our lives will live on after we are worm food.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 06:32:38 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #72 on: February 20, 2011, 08:35:47 AM »

Jackal,

I think listening to the following mp3 might help you to understand where we are (or should be?) coming from:

'Orthodox Ireland'

Quote
(In this episode of the Orthodox Nationalist) Matt Johnson discusses:

    * The Thought of John Scotus Eriugena;
    * Plato in Orthodox Ireland;
    * Greek thought in ancient Ireland;
    * The metaphysics of John Scotus Eriugena.

The title 'Orthodox Ireland' is a little under-descriptive really I think... He gets into some pretty deep stuff here.

Hope it helps.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #73 on: February 20, 2011, 09:47:27 AM »

See the problem you have Jackel is the notion that morality is exhaustively described by one's own personal feelings, ideas, beliefs, and values. This is not a neutral point of view, but rather is a particular view of morality called relativism. You give this long list of positive, negative and neutral ideas which are simply laughable. I'd like to discuss exactly why neutral morality cannot exist and further debunk moral relativism by this article: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6223

Moral relativism has become institutionalized in our education system through different forms of instruction in morality that claim to be values-neutral.  The most well-known, values clarification, was developed in the mid-60s by social scientists Louis Raths, Sidney Simon, and others.  It became very popular and was widely used in public schools during the seventies and early eighties.

According to Simon, values clarification "...does not teach a particular set of values.  There is no sermonizing or moralizing.  The goal is to involve the students in practical experiences, making them aware of their own feelings, their own ideas, their own beliefs, so that the choices and decisions they make are conscious and deliberate, based on their own value systems."

The foundational assumption of values clarification, however, is not the student's own.

This leads values clarification advocates into contradiction, as Paul Vitz, professor of psychology at New York University, points out:  "The theorists clearly believe that values clarification is good....They criticize traditional teaching of values as 'selling,' 'pushing,' and 'forcing one's own pet values.'  But when it comes to the value of their own position, relativism has conveniently disappeared, and they push their moral position with their own sermons."

My youngest brother raised his children in Hawaii.  At the time, the public school system there conducted exercises in values clarification in which the students were encouraged to develop their own beliefs about morality.  The teacher was "neutral," explaining to the students that it was up to them to formulate their own moral conclusions to these ethical dilemmas.

The children were asked to solve this problem.  An aged man had taken the life of his seriously ailing wife to put her out of her misery.  He was being tried for murder.  Should he be punished for his "mercy killing," or should he go free?

My brother made a visit to the school to register his concern, but the teacher defended the practice.  "We're not pushing our views or imposing our values," he said.  "We're careful to let the students know that it's up to them to decide what to do.  This is 'value free' instruction.  We're neutral."

My brother pointed out that the teacher's approach was anything but neutral.  "You're telling my children that when they face the hard questions of right or wrong, when they're confronted with the most difficult problems of morality, there are no guidelines.  There are no absolutes.  There are no rules.  You're teaching my kids that when they must decide critical issues of right and wrong, it's simply up to them."

Philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers exposes the moral confusion of values clarification in this true story she relates: "One of my favorite anecdotes concerns a teacher in Newton, Massachusetts, who had attended numerous values clarification workshops and was assiduously applying its techniques in her class.  The day came when her class of sixth graders announced that they valued cheating and wanted to be free to do it on their tests.  The teacher was very uncomfortable.  Her solution?  She told the children that since it was her class and since she was opposed to cheating, they were not free to cheat.  "In my class you must be honest, for I value honesty.  In other areas of your life you may be free to cheat."

Think about this response for a moment.  Does the teacher's solution follow from the instruction on values clarification she has just given to her students?  Of course not.  If the teacher values honesty, then she should be honest without imposing her values on her students.  They should still decide for themselves, which they had.

At best, the instructor is stuck in a contradiction.  When faced with the destructive consequences of relativism, she falls back into imposing her morality on her students--the very thing she's been teaching against.

At worst, the teacher's lesson is that power is the ultimate element in morality, that might makes right:  "I give the grades.  If you cheat, I'll flunk you."  Technically, this is called the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum, or to paraphrase Mao Tse Tung, "persuasion from the barrel of a gun."

Values clarification is not neutral.  Vitz points out five areas of bias.  First, its exercises embody the moral ideology of a small, ultra-liberal segment of America.  Second, its values are relative to individual tastes.  Third, possible solutions to the moral dilemmas posed to students are limited to the most liberal options.  Fourth, the exercises focus on the individual in isolation from family and society.  And fifth, morality is construed simply as self-gratification.  Vitz concludes, "It is a simple-minded, intellectually incompetent system."

What are values clarification exercises meant to teach?  That there are difficult ethical circumstances in which the lines are not clear and the solutions are ambiguous?  We already know that.  No, these exercises go further.  They imply that because some circumstances are ethically ambiguous, there are no ethical certainties at all.

Values clarification aggressively promotes a particular ethical view called moral relativism.  It uses ethical ambiguities to encourage agnosticism about universal moral rules.  By posing extremely difficult problems to children untutored in ethical decision-making, values clarification destroys their confidence in moral absolutes.  

One of the alleged virtues of relativism is its emphasis on tolerance.  An extremely articulate example of this point of view was written by Faye Wattleton, the former President of Planned Parenthood.  The piece is called, "Self-Definition:  Morality."

Quote
Like most parents, I think that a sense of moral responsibility is one of the greatest gifts I can give my child.  But teaching morality doesn't mean imposing my moral values on others.  It means sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as I do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves.

My parents' morals were deeply rooted in religious conviction but tempered by tolerance--the essence of which is respect for other people's views.  They taught me that reasonable people may differ on moral issues, and that fundamental respect for others is morality of the highest order.

"I have devoted my career to ensuring a world in which my daughter, Felicia, can inherit that legacy.  I hope the tolerance and respect I show her as a parent is reinforced by the work she sees me doing every day:  fighting for the right of all individuals to make their own moral decisions about childbearing."

Seventy-five years ago, Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to liberate individuals from the 'mighty engines of repression.'  As she wrote, 'The men and women of America are demanding that...they be allowed to mold their lives, not at the arbitrary command of church or state but as their conscience and judgment may dictate.'

I'm proud to continue that struggle, to defend the rights of all people to their own beliefs.  When others try to inflict their views on me, my daughter or anyone else, that's not morality:  It's tyranny.  It's unfair, and it's un-American.

This is impressively and persuasively written, one of the finest expressions of this view available in the space of five short paragraphs.  It sounds so sensible, so reasonable, and so tolerant, but there's a fundamental flaw.

Faye Wattleton's assessment is based on the notion of neutral ground, a place that implies no moral judgment.  Wattleton is not neutral, however, as her own comments demonstrate.

In her article, Wattleton in effect argues that each of us should respect another's point of view.  She then implies, however, that any point of view other than this one is immoral, un-American, and tyrannous.  If you disagree with Wattleton's position that all points of view are equally valid, then your point of view is not valid.  Her argument commits suicide; it self-destructs. (wonder if she takes this approach with her daughter.  Does she "inflict" Felicia with moral obligations about bedtimes, homework, drugs, cheating, etc., or is she "tolerant" of Felicia's divergent opinions on these issues?)

In fact, Wattleton has her own absolute she seeks to impose on other people:  "Fundamental respect for others is morality of the highest order."  This is a personal moral position she strives to mandate politically.  She writes, "I have devoted my career to ensuring a world in which my daughter, Felicia, can inherit that legacy."  What legacy?  Her point of view.  How does she ensure this?  By passing laws.  Faye Wattleton has devoted her career to ensuring a world in which her point of view is enforced by law.

I don't object to anyone seeking to use the political process to enforce his or her particular point of view in this way.  In our system, everybody gets a voice, and everybody gets a vote.  We each get to make our case in the public square, and may the best idea win.  Because we each can vote, no one can inflict the majority with his point of view (unless, of course, he's a judge).

What is disturbing in Wattleton's article is her implication she is neutral, unbiased, and tolerant, when she is not.  She is entitled to her point of view, but she's not neutral.  The only place of true neutrality is silence.  Speak up, give your opinion, contend for your view, and you forfeit your claim to neutrality.

As a case in point, in May, 1994, Congress passed a law making it a federal offense to block an abortion clinic.

Pamela Maraldo, then president of Planned Parenthood, commented to the press, "This law goes to show that no one can force their viewpoint on someone else."  The self-contradiction of her statement is obvious:  All laws force someone's viewpoint.

Moral neutrality seems virtuous, but there's no benefit, only danger.  In our culture we don't stop at "sharing wisdom, giving reasons for believing as [we] do--and then trusting others to think and judge for themselves," as Wattleton says, nor should we.  This leads to anarchy.  Instead we use moral reasoning, public advocacy, and legislation to encourage virtue and discourage dangerous or morally inappropriate behavior.

Faye Wattleton is offering an ethic which, although it sounds fair and tolerant, turns out to be the most bankrupt of all moral systems.  It's called moral relativism.  It's not even tolerant, as Ms. Wattleton makes clear when she condemns those who disagree with her.  It sounds persuasive, but it's also misleading and fallacious.  

In the Los Angeles riots of 1992, we watched with horror as buildings burned all over the city.  Shops were plundered not by hooded looters, but by families--Mom, Dad, and the kids--moral mutants on the shopping spree of their lives, giggling and laughing with impunity while stuffing their spoils into shopping carts and oversized trash bags.

We shouldn't have been surprised.  During the L.A. riots these families did exactly what they had been taught.  Nobody wanted to "impose" their morality on anyone else, so they learned that values are relative, that morality is a matter of personal preference.  Make up your own rules, define your own reality, seek your own truth.  In the spring of '92, thousands of people did just what we told them to do, and civilization burned.

If we reject truth, why should we be surprised at the moral chaos that follows?  As C.S. Lewis said, "We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

GK Chesterton:
Quote
"A vast amount of nonsense is talked against negative and destructive things. The silliest sort of progressive complains of negative morality, and compares it unfavorably with positive morality. The silliest sort of conservative complains of destructive reform and compares it unfavorably with constructive reform. Both the progressive and the conservative entirely neglect to consider the very meaning of the words "yes" and "no". To give the answer "yes" to one question is to imply the answer "no"o another question. To desire the construction of something is to desire the destruction of whatever prevents its construction. This is particularly plain in the fuss about the "negative" morality of the Ten Commandments. The truth is that the curtness of the Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion but of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted precisely because most things are permitted and only a few things are forbidden. An optimist who insisted on a purely positive morality would have to begin by telling a man that he might pick dandelions on a common and go on for months before he came to the fact that he might throw pebbles into the sea. In comparison with this positive morality the Ten Commandments rather shine in that brevity which is the soul of wit.

But of course the fallacy is even more fundamental than this. Negative morality is positive morality, stated in the plainest and therefore the most positive way. If I am told not to murder Mr. Robinson, if I am stopped in the very act of murdering Mr. Robinson, it is obvious that Mr. Robinson is not only spared, but in a sense renewed, and even created. And those who like Mr. Robinson, among them my reactionary romanticism might suggest the inclusion of Mrs. Robinson, will be well aware that they have recovered a living and complex unity. And similarly, those who like European civilisation, and the common code of what used to be called Christendom, will realize that salvation is not negative, but highly positive, and even highly complex. They will rejoice at its escape, long before they have leisure for its examination. But, without examination, they will know that there is a great deal to be examined, and a great deal that is worth examination. Nothing is negative except nothing. It is not our rescue that was negative, but only the nothingness and annihilation from which we were rescued.

On the other side there is the same fallacy about merely destructive reform. It could be applied just as easily to the merely destructive war. In both cases destruction may be essential to the avoidance of destruction, and also to the very possibility of construction. Men are not merely destroying a ship in order to have a shipwreck; they may be merely destroying a tree in order to have a ship. To complain that we spent four years in the Great War in mere destruction is to complain that we spent them in escaping from being destroyed. And it is, once again, to forget the fact that the failure of the murderer means the life of a positive and not a negative Mr. Robinson. If we take the imaginary Mr. Robinson as a type of the average modern man in Western Europe, and study him from head to foot, we shall find defects as well as merits. And in the whole civilisation we have saved, we shall find defects that amounts to diseases. Its feet, if not of clay, are certainly in clay, stuck in the mud of a materialistic industrial destitution and despair. To say it is a positive good and glory to have saved Mr. Robinson from strangling is to miss the whole meaning of human life. It is to forget every good as soon as we have saved it, that is, to lose it as soon as we have got it. Progress of that kind is a hope that is the enemy of faith, and  ta faith that is the enemy of charity.

When our hopes for the coming time seem disturbed or doubtful, and peace chaotic, let us remember that it is really our disappointment that is an illusion. It is our rescue that is a reality. Our grounds for gratitude are really far greater than our powers of being grateful. It is in the mood of a noble sort of humility, and even a noble sort of fear, that new things are really made. We adorn things most when we love them most. And we love them most when we have nearly lost them."
http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/essayist/V1N12.GKCessay.html
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 09:49:08 AM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #74 on: February 20, 2011, 09:49:57 AM »

See the problem you have Jackel is the notion that morality is described by one's own values and feelings. This is not a neutral point of view, but rather is a particular view of morality called relativism. You give this long list of positive, negative and neutral ideas which are simply laughable. I'd like to discuss exactly why neutral morality cannot exist and further debunk moral relativism by this article: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6223

Quote
Moral relativism has become institutionalized in our education system through different forms of instruction in morality that claim to be values-neutral.  The most well-known, values clarification, was developed in the mid-60s by social scientists Louis Raths, Sidney Simon, and others.  It became very popular and was widely used in public schools during the seventies and early eighties.

According to Simon, values clarification "...does not teach a particular set of values.  There is no sermonizing or moralizing.  The goal is to involve the students in practical experiences, making them aware of their own feelings, their own ideas, their own beliefs, so that the choices and decisions they make are conscious and deliberate, based on their own value systems."

The foundational assumption of values clarification, however, is not the student's own.

This leads values clarification advocates into contradiction, as Paul Vitz, professor of psychology at New York University, points out:  "The theorists clearly believe that values clarification is good....They criticize traditional teaching of values as 'selling,' 'pushing,' and 'forcing one's own pet values.'  But when it comes to the value of their own position, relativism has conveniently disappeared, and they push their moral position with their own sermons."
...

If we reject truth, why should we be surprised at the moral chaos that follows?  As C.S. Lewis said, "We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
Read the rest in the link, it's very good.

GK Chesterton:
Quote
"A vast amount of nonsense is talked against negative and destructive things. The silliest sort of progressive complains of negative morality, and compares it unfavorably with positive morality. The silliest sort of conservative complains of destructive reform and compares it unfavorably with constructive reform. Both the progressive and the conservative entirely neglect to consider the very meaning of the words "yes" and "no". To give the answer "yes" to one question is to imply the answer "no"o another question. To desire the construction of something is to desire the destruction of whatever prevents its construction. This is particularly plain in the fuss about the "negative" morality of the Ten Commandments. The truth is that the curtness of the Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion but of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted precisely because most things are permitted and only a few things are forbidden. An optimist who insisted on a purely positive morality would have to begin by telling a man that he might pick dandelions on a common and go on for months before he came to the fact that he might throw pebbles into the sea. In comparison with this positive morality the Ten Commandments rather shine in that brevity which is the soul of wit.

But of course the fallacy is even more fundamental than this. Negative morality is positive morality, stated in the plainest and therefore the most positive way. If I am told not to murder Mr. Robinson, if I am stopped in the very act of murdering Mr. Robinson, it is obvious that Mr. Robinson is not only spared, but in a sense renewed, and even created. And those who like Mr. Robinson, among them my reactionary romanticism might suggest the inclusion of Mrs. Robinson, will be well aware that they have recovered a living and complex unity. And similarly, those who like European civilisation, and the common code of what used to be called Christendom, will realize that salvation is not negative, but highly positive, and even highly complex. They will rejoice at its escape, long before they have leisure for its examination. But, without examination, they will know that there is a great deal to be examined, and a great deal that is worth examination. Nothing is negative except nothing. It is not our rescue that was negative, but only the nothingness and annihilation from which we were rescued.

On the other side there is the same fallacy about merely destructive reform. It could be applied just as easily to the merely destructive war. In both cases destruction may be essential to the avoidance of destruction, and also to the very possibility of construction. Men are not merely destroying a ship in order to have a shipwreck; they may be merely destroying a tree in order to have a ship. To complain that we spent four years in the Great War in mere destruction is to complain that we spent them in escaping from being destroyed. And it is, once again, to forget the fact that the failure of the murderer means the life of a positive and not a negative Mr. Robinson. If we take the imaginary Mr. Robinson as a type of the average modern man in Western Europe, and study him from head to foot, we shall find defects as well as merits. And in the whole civilisation we have saved, we shall find defects that amounts to diseases. Its feet, if not of clay, are certainly in clay, stuck in the mud of a materialistic industrial destitution and despair. To say it is a positive good and glory to have saved Mr. Robinson from strangling is to miss the whole meaning of human life. It is to forget every good as soon as we have saved it, that is, to lose it as soon as we have got it. Progress of that kind is a hope that is the enemy of faith, and  ta faith that is the enemy of charity.

When our hopes for the coming time seem disturbed or doubtful, and peace chaotic, let us remember that it is really our disappointment that is an illusion. It is our rescue that is a reality. Our grounds for gratitude are really far greater than our powers of being grateful. It is in the mood of a noble sort of humility, and even a noble sort of fear, that new things are really made. We adorn things most when we love them most. And we love them most when we have nearly lost them."
http://www.chesterton.org/gkc/essayist/V1N12.GKCessay.html

[/quote]
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 09:51:59 AM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #75 on: February 20, 2011, 12:09:40 PM »

Information theory can be circumvented, if you're God.  God created information.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #76 on: February 20, 2011, 01:09:24 PM »

Information theory can be circumvented, if you're God.  God created information.

Now that is laughable! Creates information from a position of no information LOL.. That's the same thing as saying that he creates existence from a position of non-existence! Wow, good job! Wink
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #77 on: February 20, 2011, 02:09:20 PM »

Quote
See the problem you have Jackel is the notion that morality is exhaustively described by one's own personal feelings, ideas, beliefs, and values. This is not a neutral point of view, but rather is a particular view of morality called relativism. You give this long list of positive, negative and neutral ideas which are simply laughable. I'd like to discuss exactly why neutral morality cannot exist and further debunk moral relativism by this article:

Sorry, but I completely disagree! Relativism, or even morality itself is based entirely around those rules LOL. You posted a lot of useless nonsense that failed utterly at trying to circumvent information theory. But for giggles I will open a new thread on morality later on.. It's linked to behavioral adaptation to which is taught within cultural, and social networks of the human species.It begins at birth. However, you can't have morals without positive, negative, or neutral abstract perspectives, opinions, or feelings about any given thing from a conscious perspective. Such as murder, genocide, hate ect. Unconscious things are always morally neutral.  
Quote
I'd like to discuss exactly why neutral morality cannot exist

Sure it can..A rock is morally neutral because it's simply not conscious! .. I myself can be morally neutral on subjects and just say that I have no concern either way on a subject, event, or thing. The problem you are having sir is that positive, negative, and neutral aren't always cut and dry with specific dividing lines. They can be vaguely abstract and complex with a lot of gray areas to which is dependent on abstract perspective of an individual in the case where something has a consciousness. The relativity of that solely relies on those 3 laws. I am going to go into this further in the post below:

---------------

Here we are going to explore some terms:


Noumenon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
The noumenon (from Greek νοούμενoν, present participle of νοέω "I think, I mean"; plural: νοούμενα - noumena) is a posited object or event as it is in itself, independent of the senses.[1] It classically refers to an object of human inquiry, understanding or cognition. As a concept it has much in common with objectivity. That which is tangible but not perceivable, the reflection of phenomenon.

Phenomena
A phenomenon (from Greek φαινόμενoν, pl. φαινόμενα - phenomena) is any observable occurrence. In popular usage, a phenomenon often refers to an extraordinary event. In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however commonplace it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe it. For example, in physics, a phenomenon may be a feature of matter, energy, or spacetime, such as Isaac Newton's observations of the moon's orbit and of gravity, or Galileo Galilei's observations of the motion of a pendulum.

Gemology:
Play-of-color, labradorescence, iridescence, adularescence, chatoyancy, asterism, aventurescence, lustre and color change are all phenomena of this type.
The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to "phenomenon", which refers to appearances, or objects of the senses.


Generally Gemology for example only refers to the observation of any given phenomenon or process. However when dealing with consciousness for example, these processes can also be unobservable if one is the subject or product of the process. Hence, we can hear ourselves thinking, but the processing of the information that leads to let's say a 2D image in our minds, or what we are thinking can not be self-observable! Thus is assumed by you to be non-material or non-physical noumenon when in fact it's not! And that is because information must be processed, and information can't exist as nothing!

Thus all things must have substance or pattern of substance. This is where energy by said concept is philosophically considered non-physical or non-material. However, it's actually not non-physical, and is material! All forms of consciousness require the material physical world in order to be possible. And this is why it's impossible to have thought processes without energy, containment, complexity, substance, or information, or a structure capable of processing information. This is why you can't have literal -1 energy, no-capacity, no structure, no substance, no-form, or what ever other attribute of nothing you want to toss around! So the existence of non-material simply doesn't exist because it's definition states that it doesn't and can't exist! Stating so is like trying to state that non-existence can exist as a person, place, or thing of existence!.

Memory:

Here, we can try and state that memory or that anything of memory is non-material or non-physical source of human inquiry, however this is false and has been proven to be directly reliant on the physical universe because it is also comprised of the substance of existence itself (energy.) Energy is self-oscillating and is a prime example of phenomenon. So a noumenon is only a product of a phenomenon. This means that experiences only prove the existence of existence, and the existence or state of existence in which the observer is in, or is apart of!. Experience is essentially tied to memory because an experience is stored information (knowledge) on any observed phenomenon, sensed phenomenon, or unobservable phenomenon such as the processing process of thought.. All of these things are apart of existence and must be comprised of the substance of the Universal Set laws of positive, negative and neutral. Experiences can not be written, stored, or understood without them.

So, what we find to not be perceivable, or what gives you the perception of consciousness being non-material is the physical processes that are involved to which occur within your brain. Hence, we can not consciously perceive the processing process because our perceptions and observations of reality and self are only end products of the process! AKA the end emergent property! Hence, the actual processing of information is independent of internal self conscious observation unless observed by a 3rd party to where it can be objectively studied.. Thoughts, feelings, emotions are simply processed and executed responses to stimuli, this is to where the response is itself a physical pattern or phenomenon. There is a reason why you can't feel an emotion without actually physically feeling it, or have an emotions without physically conveying it. Thoughts may be philosophically considered independent of the physical world outside the body, but they are not independent of it because they directly apart of it and rely on it for substance to give them existence as a pattern of information/energy. This is because they too are products of phenomenon. Hence the firing of neurons carry the messages from the senses that can produce informational patterns to be stored, processed, and then applied. And what you also fail to address is that much of what supports consciousness and self-awareness is the internal sensing of one's self or body because we are deeply connected to our own bodies.

So this is why this is correctly stated:


 * Conscious Mechanical Self-Organization

Abstract

Quote
   The evolution of consciousness is seen in the context of energy driven evolution in general, where energy and information are understood as two sides of the same coin. From this perspective consciousness is viewed as an ecological system in which streams of cognitive, perceptual, and emotional information form a rich complex of interactions, analogous to the interactive metabolism of a living cell. The result is an organic, self-generating, or autopoietic, system, continuously in the act of creating itself. Evidence suggests that this process is chaotic, or at least chaotic-like, and capable of assuming a number of distinct states best understood as chaotic attractors


FACT: A Phenomenon can not occur or be of process without material or physical capacity! Thus Existence is a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating energy, and self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, mass, consciousness, morality, an even your relativism possible.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 02:18:42 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #78 on: February 20, 2011, 02:24:30 PM »

Information theory can be circumvented, if you're God.  God created information.

Now that is laughable! Creates information from a position of no information LOL.. That's the same thing as saying that he creates existence from a position of non-existence! Wow, good job! Wink

No no no...you got it all wrong there.  Clearly God's existence is not like our existence.  So let's say God trans-exist, and we simply exist.  So therefore, God is also transcendant information.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #79 on: February 20, 2011, 02:41:09 PM »

Quote
"A vast amount of nonsense is talked against negative and destructive things. The silliest sort of progressive complains of negative morality, and compares it unfavorably with positive morality. The silliest sort of conservative complains of destructive reform and compares it unfavorably with constructive reform. Both the progressive and the conservative entirely neglect to consider the very meaning of the words "yes" and "no"
.

YES and NO are a positive and negative while the meaning of "maybe" or "no-position" are equally ignored by your entire argument. A negative morality or positive morality are only applicable to those thing to which have a brain, or things capable of responding to stimuli. Even lower life forms with brains display primitive moral dynamics, and even cognitive dynamics. Enzymes themselves display cognitive self-organizing dynamics. So when you are dealing with individuals the moral pendlum will greatly depend on how much they positively, negatively, or neutrally respond to any given event, thing, or subject. This is the fractal nature of a chaotic system with positive, negative, and neutral feedback. Thus entirely complex things such as individual moral code, or cultural morality can emerge.  

Lets explore cognitive dynamics:

Plants for example show what primitive cognitive dynamics looks like before the evolution of the brain. Hence plants show behaviors that exhibit cognitive dynamics Such as in that plants appear to have the ability to solve problems, avoid obstacles, plant their own seeds, co-evolve to specific species of insects or animals, move in a 3d environment. or communicate ect.. Even though these are chemically or sometimes electrically driven, they are none-the-less dynamics associated with intelligence, the basics to awareness, and cognition.
http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Zoology-and-wildlife-conservation/Potential-awareness-of-plants-ATP-dependent-glutathione-S-conjugate-export-pump-in-the-vacuolar-memb.html

Plant stimuli reactions from wikipedia:


* Auxin - A plant hormone which mediates responses
* Chemotropism - Plant response to chemicals
* Cryptochrome - A light receptor pigment
* Ethylene - A plant hormone which mediates responses
* Gravitropism - Behavior associated with gravitic perception
* Heliotropism - Behavior associated with sunlight perception
* Hormonal sentience - Plant information processing theory
* Hydrotropism - Plant response to moisture
* Hypersensitive response - Local reaction produced in response to infection by microbes
* Kinesis - Movement
* Nastic movements - A type of rapid response to non-directional stimulus
* Osmosis - A means of water transportation on the cellular level
* Phototropin - A light receptor pigment
* Phototropism - A behavior associated with light perception
* Phytochrome - A light receptor pigment
* Phytosemiotics - Analysis of vegetative processes on the basis of semiotic theory
* Plant defense against herbivory - Some plant responses to physical disruption
* Plant hormone - A mediator of response to stimuli
* Plant physiology - The science of plant function
* Rapid plant movement - Description of rapid plant movements
* Sensory receptors - Discussion of organs of perception in organisms
* Statolith - An organ of gravity perception
* Stoma - A plant pore which responds to stimulus and which regulates gas exchange
* Systemic acquired resistance - A "whole-plant" resistance response to microbial pathogens that occurs following an earlier, localized response
* Taxis - A type of response to a directional stimulus seen in motile developmental stages of lower plants
* Thermotropism - Plant response to heat
* Thigmotropism - Plant response to touch
* Tropism - A type of response to a directional stimulus

Now you can ask me why haven't plants evolved consciousness by now? Well, evolution does not state that it would. However you can feel free to reference the Green sea slug here:

 http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/green-sea-slug/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

You can also see primitive evolution of moral behavioral dynamics in the above.. Thing like self-preservation of a living organism.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #80 on: February 20, 2011, 02:44:38 PM »

Quote
No no no...you got it all wrong there.  Clearly God's existence is not like our existence.  So let's say God trans-exist, and we simply exist.  So therefore, God is also transcendant information.

That is the dumbest possible argument you could possibly make. That's what I would call utter denial of reality.. Non-existence transcends existence silly wabbit!. Thanks for verifying that your GOD doesn't exist, and only exists as an Idea in your head! Smiley That's exactly what your argument states. You people are straight up Nihilists who believe Nothing is GOD o.O Talk about a circular logic fail :<

I tell ya what.. If your GOD can post a reply on this forum without the use of information, and material physicality.. I will concede to your premise lol. After all, he should be Omnipotent and Omniscient to where it could do so.. So I await his post below Wink Oh wait.. What's the definition of omniscient again? Smiley
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 03:15:11 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #81 on: February 20, 2011, 03:20:49 PM »

Well that's interesting.  I've heard a famous atheistic cosmologist say that you need nothing to start something.  But to you everything outside of something is nothing.  So who's right?

And if nothing isn't nothing anymore, but randomly firing negative and positive particles from the future, well, first off, isn't that a bit circular about creation, that things continually and constantly created and destroyed in neutral terms?  Does not humanity look for the final circular logical answer in that?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 03:28:25 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #82 on: February 20, 2011, 03:28:02 PM »

Morality:

www.mukto-mona.com "]- Aparthib

Quote
   ...Moral instinct  itself is rooted in the laws of nature (Physics) via the working of the brain. Morality is latent in the laws of nature. It finds expression through the process of evolution...

 
For the newer members below are the links to the previous eight writeup in this series:

   1. Science, Objectivity &; Postmodernism
   2. Science vs. Mysticism &; Philosophy
   3. Science, Logic, Faith, Beauty.. etc
   4. Science, Miracles &; the Paranormal
   5. On the Nature vs. Nurture Debate
   6. A Scientific View of Life Death Immortality:
   7. Brain and Religion
   8. Freewill vs. Predestination

You can also look at Morality in terms of mental addiction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction
Quote
   A positive addiction is a beneficial habit--where the benefits outweigh the costs. A negative addiction is a detrimental habit—where the benefits are not worth the negative financial, physical, spiritual and mental costs. A neutral addiction is a habit in which it is not clear if the organism (or species) benefits from the activity.


In biology and energy, behavioral neutrals, positives and negatives are always present. So when you see them asking how does evolution support morality, we can address it because evolution is a positive and negative behavior itself! active matter exhibits these traits unconsciously. Evolution doesn't think about morality, it just selects from positives and negatives based on pattern interaction with other patterns that influence or exert pressure on any given pattern or set of patterns to swing one way or another. Hence, a species will either adapt in a positive or go extinct in a negative because it fails to apply a positive adaptation or behavior.. This is the same concept of moral behavior, and the evolution of moral behaviors.

Basically evolution is a prime example of neutral moral behavior to where it can swing from to a positive or a negative just like a neutral behavioral addiction can swing to a negative addiction or to a positive addiction. So human brains evolve to satisfy the above into a positive and beneficial mental addiction that can equate to the source purpose of "morality" within the human species... It's a positive and negative flow or balance to where one tends to usually be in a state of neutral addiction. A relative abstract perceptual and perpetual pendulum to which is apart of the system of order from chaos.

---

[size=150]
In layman's terms:[/size]

Things either don't change and stay neutral, or they take a positive or negative route! There is no outside to these fundamental rules!.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 03:28:30 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #83 on: February 20, 2011, 03:41:20 PM »

Well that's interesting.  I've heard a famous atheistic cosmologist say that you need nothing to start something.  But to you everything outside of something is nothing.  So who's right?

And if nothing isn't nothing anymore, but randomly firing negative and positive particles from the future, well, first off, isn't that a bit circular about creation, that things continually and constantly created and destroyed in neutral terms?  Does not humanity look for the final circular logical answer in that?

I disagree. They are referring to ground state (ground zero) on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale. And any atheist that does might not be aware of this.  If you really read into the science you would know that they don't ever talk about literal nothing or needing literal nothing. Even if our entire universe vanished there would still remain infinite capacity, or spatial capacity. And you miss interpret particle physics because borrowing from the future deals with borrowing energy from it's nearest neighbor. Same concept already proven in quantum computing. In an infinite volume you can have a zero-point energy interfere with another zero-point energy because energy can interfere with itself.AKA the Quantum Foam. Energy self-oscillates and only requires itself to cause particle and anti-particle collisions. All that is required is the base properties of positive, negative, and neutral.Their research into the higgs field or GOD particle is to find out exactly how matter arises from ground state. You can't get any less than ground state. It does bug me though that scientists or cosmologists don't really explain things well in laymen terms. I posted the orders of magnitude more than once here, did any of you bother to review it?

However, even if you wanted to try and make the argument that information was "non-material" the GOD concept would still be slave to require the rules I have stated in accordance to information theory. Those 3 rules are the base cause of all causation.. The ground state of all that can and does exist. To put that into context:

Power, divinity, complexity ect can not exist without the lowest possible level of either of those. Powers that are greater are powerless without first the existence of the lowest level of power. 5 apples can not exist without there first being 4 other apples to which includes itself. The cause of causation begins at ground state! It doesn't matter how you want to argue it because that is how you properly apply and solve infinite regress.. It can only be solved by a literal impossible point to where infinite regress can no longer literally regress. Things with consciousness can not ever solve this because consciousness requires far more cause to exist than things that are not conscious. A rock requires less complexity to be a rock than I do to be a conscious entity.

It's really irrelevant if our consciousness can transcend the biological container, or if we could immortally exist consciously. My only argument is that it will have to follow the rules of information theory. Rules that can not be written or created. Usually GOD's are seen as being more complex and powerful than humans.. not less to the point of being nothing but an implausible fallacy. All theists have to do is dump the fallacies in their belief systems and they are GOLDEN. All that my arguments state is that anything made of something with informational value could plausibly exist, and anything more complex than ground state has cause. 
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 04:07:06 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #84 on: February 20, 2011, 04:19:51 PM »

I will even simplify this further..


Just by stating that your GOD exists would be subjecting your GOD to be +1 above 0.. A positive vs a negative existence. Already bound to information theory, and the rules there of.! It's that simple Wink And there is not a darn thing wrong with that, or in accepting that. The only down side is that you have to give up other fallacies like "boundless", "omniscient", and "Omnipotent"..  If you want to say your GOD is as smart and as knowing as you can actually possibly get..Sure! If you want to say that your GOD can be as powerful as something could realistically get..Sure! I don't have issues with those more realistic positions.  
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 04:26:11 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #85 on: February 20, 2011, 04:28:56 PM »

I will even simplify this further..


Just by stating that your GOD exists would be subjecting your GOD to be +1 above 0.. A positive vs a negative existence. Already bound to information theory, and the rules there of.! It's that simple Wink And there is not a darn thing wrong with that, or in accepting that. The only down side is that you have to give up other fallacies like "boundless", "omniscient", and "Omnipotent"..  If you want to say your GOD is as smart and as knowing as you can actually possibly get..Sure! If you want to say that your GOD can be as powerful as something could realistically get..Sure! I don't have issues with those more realistic positions.  
Umm, you are still missing it. If God exists, he is beyone information theory, beyond "...-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3..."
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #86 on: February 20, 2011, 04:35:25 PM »

I will even simplify this further..


Just by stating that your GOD exists would be subjecting your GOD to be +1 above 0.. A positive vs a negative existence. Already bound to information theory, and the rules there of.! It's that simple Wink And there is not a darn thing wrong with that, or in accepting that. The only down side is that you have to give up other fallacies like "boundless", "omniscient", and "Omnipotent"..  If you want to say your GOD is as smart and as knowing as you can actually possibly get..Sure! If you want to say that your GOD can be as powerful as something could realistically get..Sure! I don't have issues with those more realistic positions.  
Umm, you are still missing it. If God exists, he is beyone information theory, beyond "...-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3..."

DOES NOT COMPUTE! - Incoherent argument.

You just made a self-collapsing circular argument. :<
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 04:44:34 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #87 on: February 20, 2011, 05:18:49 PM »

Information theory can be circumvented, if you're God.  God created information.

Now that is laughable! Creates information from a position of no information LOL.. That's the same thing as saying that he creates existence from a position of non-existence! Wow, good job! Wink

No information? I was under the impression God encompesed all information. And mina is right He transceds memory. You say this is not reality?

Suppose you are designing a video game. You make the worlds, create NPC's (Non-Playable Character) to fill this world, put in some environment randomness on the world the NPCs fill up, etc. Now that I have created this world I actually transcend reality itself because I created it. I am not a part of this creation but have became the creator. Now I could freely interact with my creation anytime I would like to, but my presence would remain unknown to my creation. Now you see I know ALL the information because I created it. Suppose my NPCs only can do two actions, walk and sleep. Considering I made these NPC's, and gave them the ability to have these actions, I know what reaction they will have if they walk into a ditch or walk into another NPC. But I want my NPC's to have freedom to choose. So instead of guiding my NPC's not from falling off a cliff, I'll let them decide. Also suppose I gave them a brain to think, and they wonder about their Creator. But I haven't revealed myself because if I was to reveal myself would turn my creation into robots by worshipping me just on presence alone and not by choice. So they contemplate do I exist? What am I like? Why don't I show myself? Why do I let my creation kill itself? So they reject that I actually exist, they believe I'm nothing. I could get angry at them and tell them "No! I am here!" but this would impede on their freedom, so I remain hidden.

Anyway the whole point is that I exist however my existence isn't contingent on if my actual creation thinks I exist. I am in another reality than my NPCs are in. Do you understand how this works?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #88 on: February 20, 2011, 05:35:27 PM »

Quote
No information? I was under the impression God encompesed all information. And mina is right He transceds memory. You say this is not reality?

Thanks for calling me GOD Wink now why would I worship myself?

Now you have invented contradictions ..

1) All information would include me, literally in every infinite way.
2) You are now jockeying for Solipsism - so much for individualism
3) You are contradicting another post that say it transcends information.

Coherency in your positions might help.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 05:40:04 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #89 on: February 20, 2011, 06:07:33 PM »

You cannot be God because you do not have all the information.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #90 on: February 20, 2011, 06:10:00 PM »

You cannot be God because you do not have all the information.

Logic fail.. Please define the term "Omniscient". For it to be Omniscient " infinitely Know everything" would make me, you, and the sum total that all exists as GOD...

You know there is only 1 fundamental difference between my argument and yours. .. I call energy =/= information as the substance of existence.. You call it god Wink
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 06:13:55 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #91 on: February 20, 2011, 06:17:07 PM »

Omniscience is to know everything infinitely. And we do NOT know everything infinitely. You're turning into a dataswammi.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #92 on: February 20, 2011, 06:23:23 PM »

Omniscience is to know everything infinitely. And we do NOT know everything infinitely. You're turning into a dataswammi.

You completely failed to grasp what I said above! Hence my conscious window is just apart of GODS consciousness in your argument.. You are attempting to argue GOD is a case of pure solipsism and that you are just a figment of it's imagination. Or you can say that under Omniscience, your god has a multiple personality disorder. Thus I am GOD arguing with myself on whether or not I exist.

To infinitely Know everything, it would have to literally be infinitely everything in every infinite literal way possible. Thus thanks for calling me GOD. Undecided
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 06:29:10 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #93 on: February 20, 2011, 06:28:49 PM »

Well that's interesting.  I've heard a famous atheistic cosmologist say that you need nothing to start something.  But to you everything outside of something is nothing.  So who's right?

And if nothing isn't nothing anymore, but randomly firing negative and positive particles from the future, well, first off, isn't that a bit circular about creation, that things continually and constantly created and destroyed in neutral terms?  Does not humanity look for the final circular logical answer in that?

I disagree. They are referring to ground state (ground zero) on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale. And any atheist that does might not be aware of this.  If you really read into the science you would know that they don't ever talk about literal nothing or needing literal nothing. Even if our entire universe vanished there would still remain infinite capacity, or spatial capacity. And you miss interpret particle physics because borrowing from the future deals with borrowing energy from it's nearest neighbor. Same concept already proven in quantum computing. In an infinite volume you can have a zero-point energy interfere with another zero-point energy because energy can interfere with itself.AKA the Quantum Foam. Energy self-oscillates and only requires itself to cause particle and anti-particle collisions. All that is required is the base properties of positive, negative, and neutral.Their research into the higgs field or GOD particle is to find out exactly how matter arises from ground state. You can't get any less than ground state. It does bug me though that scientists or cosmologists don't really explain things well in laymen terms. I posted the orders of magnitude more than once here, did any of you bother to review it?

However, even if you wanted to try and make the argument that information was "non-material" the GOD concept would still be slave to require the rules I have stated in accordance to information theory. Those 3 rules are the base cause of all causation.. The ground state of all that can and does exist. To put that into context:

Power, divinity, complexity ect can not exist without the lowest possible level of either of those. Powers that are greater are powerless without first the existence of the lowest level of power. 5 apples can not exist without there first being 4 other apples to which includes itself. The cause of causation begins at ground state! It doesn't matter how you want to argue it because that is how you properly apply and solve infinite regress.. It can only be solved by a literal impossible point to where infinite regress can no longer literally regress. Things with consciousness can not ever solve this because consciousness requires far more cause to exist than things that are not conscious. A rock requires less complexity to be a rock than I do to be a conscious entity.

It's really irrelevant if our consciousness can transcend the biological container, or if we could immortally exist consciously. My only argument is that it will have to follow the rules of information theory. Rules that can not be written or created. Usually GOD's are seen as being more complex and powerful than humans.. not less to the point of being nothing but an implausible fallacy. All theists have to do is dump the fallacies in their belief systems and they are GOLDEN. All that my arguments state is that anything made of something with informational value could plausibly exist, and anything more complex than ground state has cause. 

Why does everything fall under ground zero?  Are all things risen from ground state?  Can there not be a possibility that all things may have risen from above or below ground state?  Why the assumption that all things must cancel each other out?

And why must there be infinite spatial capacity?  Do we have any tools that may help us prove we are in an infinite spatial capacity?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #94 on: February 20, 2011, 06:33:29 PM »

Quote
Why does everything fall under ground zero?  Are all things risen from ground state?  Can there not be a possibility that all things may have risen from above or below ground state?  Why the assumption that all things must cancel each other out?

That's how complexity works.. did you expect complexity to sustain itself without it's ground state? Wink You let me know when you sustain a 100 story building without it's 99 other floors to which includes the 100th floor. Not going to happen.. Complexity is not sustainable without ground state.
Quote
And why must there be infinite spatial capacity?

In formation can not be contain in a place that has no capacity to contain anything. Zero capacity is impossible and that is why capacity itself is made of the substance of existence itself.. energy =/= information = capacity = infinite volume.  

Example:

If you took a sphere and tried to infinitely collapse it, it would reach a point of conversion (ground state). A point to where if you tried to continue to contract, it would converge every degree of it's circumference to polar opposites and then appear to expand again into a sphere. Hence, it can not contract into a negative dimensional object. The principle is very basic.. No object can exist in a negative capacity, or have absolute zero dimensional value.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 06:46:23 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #95 on: February 20, 2011, 06:38:05 PM »

Well, we don't just start from the zeroeth floor.  We need foundations.  And the higher the floor, the stronger the foundations need to be.  So, technically, wouldn't that be starting from negative state rather than ground state?

But why infinite capacity?  Why not a finite capacity?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 06:45:30 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #96 on: February 20, 2011, 06:42:31 PM »

Quote
Well, we don't just start from the zeroeth floor.  We need foundations. 

Same thing. Ground state is considered the foundation.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #97 on: February 20, 2011, 06:46:07 PM »

Quote
Well, we don't just start from the zeroeth floor.  We need foundations. 

Same thing. Ground state is considered the foundation.

But then the foundation should be negative state, not ground state, according to your analogy.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 06:46:26 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #98 on: February 20, 2011, 06:48:35 PM »

Quote
Well, we don't just start from the zeroeth floor.  We need foundations.  

Same thing. Ground state is considered the foundation.

But then the foundation should be negative state, not ground state, according to your analogy.

Wrong.. Negative states don't exist (in terms of objects, substance, and capacity). zero state by definition is without state. And going into negatives just gets worse.. Ground state is the very bottom of the barrel to where regression is no longer possible.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 06:51:25 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #99 on: February 20, 2011, 06:49:43 PM »

Quote
Well, we don't just start from the zeroeth floor.  We need foundations. 

Same thing. Ground state is considered the foundation.

But then the foundation should be negative state, not ground state, according to your analogy.

Wrong.. Negative states don't exist. zero state by definition is without state. And going into negatives just gets worse.. Ground state is the very bottom of the barrel to where regression is no longer possible.

So ground state is not zero, but positive?  Gee, that doesn't make sense.  You don't start building a building from above the ground floor.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 06:50:21 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #100 on: February 20, 2011, 06:58:35 PM »

Quote
So ground state is not zero, but positive?  Gee, that doesn't make sense.  You don't start building a building from above the ground floor.

Yes, it will always be 1 over literal zero because literal zero is not possible in terms of existence, capacity, information ect.. It makes total sense. Zero is thus represented as the starting point in science, it's not referenced as literal zero.. Zero is just a place holder for lowest state of a system.

Quote
The ground state of a quantum mechanical system is its lowest-energy state; the energy of the ground state is known as the zero-point energy of the system. An excited state is any state with energy greater than the ground state. The ground state of a quantum field theory is usually called the vacuum state or the vacuum.


In science energy can never reach a literal zero state, and thus can capacity never exist in a state of zero capacity. This thus makes spatial capacity and infinite volume where there is only on average energy at ground state, as noted in quantum foam theory.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 07:03:01 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #101 on: February 20, 2011, 07:01:01 PM »

Quote
So ground state is not zero, but positive?  Gee, that doesn't make sense.  You don't start building a building from above the ground floor.

Yes, it will always be 1 over literal zero because literal zero is not possible in terms of existence, capacity, information ect.. It makes total sense. Zero is thus represented as the starting point in science, it's not referenced as literal zero.. Zero is just a place holder for lowest state of a system.

Quote
The ground state of a quantum mechanical system is its lowest-energy state; the energy of the ground state is known as the zero-point energy of the system. An excited state is any state with energy greater than the ground state. The ground state of a quantum field theory is usually called the vacuum state or the vacuum.

So when scientists say "zero" it doesn't really mean zero, it means one?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 07:01:51 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #102 on: February 20, 2011, 07:05:07 PM »

Quote
So ground state is not zero, but positive?  Gee, that doesn't make sense.  You don't start building a building from above the ground floor.

Yes, it will always be 1 over literal zero because literal zero is not possible in terms of existence, capacity, information ect.. It makes total sense. Zero is thus represented as the starting point in science, it's not referenced as literal zero.. Zero is just a place holder for lowest state of a system.

Quote
The ground state of a quantum mechanical system is its lowest-energy state; the energy of the ground state is known as the zero-point energy of the system. An excited state is any state with energy greater than the ground state. The ground state of a quantum field theory is usually called the vacuum state or the vacuum.

So when scientists say "zero" it doesn't really mean zero, it means one?

When you are dealing with magnitudes of energy it can never be literal 0.0 or (0,0).. Same reasons why in thermodynamics literal zero temperature is impossible. so I will post this again for like the 10th time:


1) Scale:
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

2) You, me, and everything else on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale..as also demonstrated above under (scale):

http://talklikeaphysicist.com/2009/energy-scale-of-over-100-orders-of-magnitude/
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 07:06:38 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #103 on: February 20, 2011, 07:10:08 PM »

Quote
So ground state is not zero, but positive?  Gee, that doesn't make sense.  You don't start building a building from above the ground floor.

Yes, it will always be 1 over literal zero because literal zero is not possible in terms of existence, capacity, information ect.. It makes total sense. Zero is thus represented as the starting point in science, it's not referenced as literal zero.. Zero is just a place holder for lowest state of a system.

Quote
The ground state of a quantum mechanical system is its lowest-energy state; the energy of the ground state is known as the zero-point energy of the system. An excited state is any state with energy greater than the ground state. The ground state of a quantum field theory is usually called the vacuum state or the vacuum.

So when scientists say "zero" it doesn't really mean zero, it means one?

When you are dealing with magnitudes of energy it can never be literal 0.0 or (0,0).. Same reasons why in thermodynamics literal zero temperature is impossible. so I will post this again for like the 10th time:


1) Scale:
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

2) You, me, and everything else on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale..as also demonstrated above under (scale):

http://talklikeaphysicist.com/2009/energy-scale-of-over-100-orders-of-magnitude/

Oh ya, I remember that.  TTC posted it once before.

So ground state is 10^(-35) m?

And why is there an infinite capacity?  Why not finite?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 07:11:39 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #104 on: February 20, 2011, 07:13:51 PM »


Quote
So ground state is 10^(-35)?

You might want to reference where the comparison point is being made Wink.. It's not saying it goes into literal negatives. Hence how big is an atom vs how big I am.. Never does it state literal  0.0  Wink

A box laying on my floor has a finite capacity.. However the box is not the limit of capacity, and the box itself is apart of the capacity. The universe is like the box.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 07:15:46 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #105 on: February 20, 2011, 07:17:06 PM »



Quote
So ground state is 10^(-35)?

You might want to reference where the comparison point is being made Wink.. It's not saying it goes into literal negatives. Hence how big is an atom vs how big I am.. Never does it state literal  0.0  Wink

Where did I write I'm going into literal negatives.  The website shows that anything smaller than 10^(-35) m (which if I recall basic arithmetic is a positive number, albeit very small) makes "no physical sense."  So I'm wondering if that's what the ground state really is.  You said everything starts from ground state, and it's not literally "zero."  Unless there's another reason you're posting that website.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #106 on: February 20, 2011, 07:18:09 PM »

A box laying on my floor has a finite capacity.. However the box is not the limit of capacity, and the box itself is apart of the capacity. The universe is like the box.

But then that means there's a finite capacity albeit very large capacity, not an infinite capacity.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 07:18:33 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #107 on: February 20, 2011, 07:22:56 PM »

Omniscience is to know everything infinitely. And we do NOT know everything infinitely. You're turning into a dataswammi.

You completely failed to grasp what I said above! Hence my conscious window is just apart of GODS consciousness in your argument.. You are attempting to argue GOD is a case of pure solipsism and that you are just a figment of it's imagination. Or you can say that under Omniscience, your god has a multiple personality disorder. Thus I am GOD arguing with myself on whether or not I exist.
How can my mind by a figment of God's imagination when solipsism states that only my mind exists. You and God would just be a figment of my imagination.

Furthermore if God is omnscient, that still does not restrict us by God's foreknowledge.

Quote
To infinitely Know everything, it would have to literally be infinitely everything in every infinite literal way possible. Thus thanks for calling me GOD. Undecided


Ok but you ARE NOT infinitely in EVERYTHING nor in every infinite literal way possible.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #108 on: February 20, 2011, 08:06:55 PM »

Omniscience is to know everything infinitely. And we do NOT know everything infinitely. You're turning into a dataswammi.

You completely failed to grasp what I said above! Hence my conscious window is just apart of GODS consciousness in your argument.. You are attempting to argue GOD is a case of pure solipsism and that you are just a figment of it's imagination. Or you can say that under Omniscience, your god has a multiple personality disorder. Thus I am GOD arguing with myself on whether or not I exist.
How can my mind by a figment of God's imagination when solipsism states that only my mind exists. You and God would just be a figment of my imagination.

Furthermore if God is omnscient, that still does not restrict us by God's foreknowledge.

Quote
To infinitely Know everything, it would have to literally be infinitely everything in every infinite literal way possible. Thus thanks for calling me GOD. Undecided


Ok but you ARE NOT infinitely in EVERYTHING nor in every infinite literal way possible.

WOW. lol... Your idea of GOD would be! HELLO! that would in fact make you GOD! (a finite part of him) but none-the-less GOD!
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #109 on: February 20, 2011, 08:10:14 PM »

A box laying on my floor has a finite capacity.. However the box is not the limit of capacity, and the box itself is apart of the capacity. The universe is like the box.

But then that means there's a finite capacity albeit very large capacity, not an infinite capacity.

wrong.. It would only make the universe a finite capacity, not that which it's expanding into lol. Space time is not the expansion of space son.. I think many people don't grasp this very fact. Our Universe is like our Milkyway Galaxy.. A flat disk floating in a much larger volume to which is infinite except that it's expanding.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 08:12:41 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #110 on: February 20, 2011, 08:11:29 PM »

A box laying on my floor has a finite capacity.. However the box is not the limit of capacity, and the box itself is apart of the capacity. The universe is like the box.

But then that means there's a finite capacity albeit very large capacity, not an infinite capacity.

wrong.. It would only make the universe a finite capacity, not that which it's expanding into lol. Space time is not the expansion of space son.. I think many people don't grasp this very fact. Our Universe is like our Milkyway Galaxy.. A flat disk floating in a much larger volume to which is infinite.

Okay...why is that infinite?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #111 on: February 20, 2011, 08:22:59 PM »

A box laying on my floor has a finite capacity.. However the box is not the limit of capacity, and the box itself is apart of the capacity. The universe is like the box.

But then that means there's a finite capacity albeit very large capacity, not an infinite capacity.

wrong.. It would only make the universe a finite capacity, not that which it's expanding into lol. Space time is not the expansion of space son.. I think many people don't grasp this very fact. Our Universe is like our Milkyway Galaxy.. A flat disk floating in a much larger volume to which is infinite.

Okay...why is that infinite?

Refer back to the collapse of the sphere example. negative capacity or no capacity do not exist. It's that simple. Thus any point in space is relative and can not be stated as a beginning or an end to capacity because they are apart of the capacity (infinite volume).. So literal 0D doesn't exist or any relative point in space. It will always be an infinite volume for this very reason.



 
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 08:28:25 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #112 on: February 20, 2011, 08:28:36 PM »

A box laying on my floor has a finite capacity.. However the box is not the limit of capacity, and the box itself is apart of the capacity. The universe is like the box.

But then that means there's a finite capacity albeit very large capacity, not an infinite capacity.

wrong.. It would only make the universe a finite capacity, not that which it's expanding into lol. Space time is not the expansion of space son.. I think many people don't grasp this very fact. Our Universe is like our Milkyway Galaxy.. A flat disk floating in a much larger volume to which is infinite.

Okay...why is that infinite?

Refer back to the collapse of the sphere example. negative capacity or no capacity do not exist. It's that simple. Thus any point in space is relative and can not be stated as a beginning or an end to capacity because they are apart of the capacity (infinite volume).. So literal 0D doesn't exist or any relative point in space. It will always be an infinite volume for this very reason.

I didn't ask why the capacity is a negative or zero capacity.  I asked why it's not a finitely large capacity where we are unable to fathom its beginning or end?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #113 on: February 20, 2011, 08:31:15 PM »

Also, just to reiterate and be clear.  Are you saying there's no such thing as zero or negative energy?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #114 on: February 20, 2011, 08:31:50 PM »

A box laying on my floor has a finite capacity.. However the box is not the limit of capacity, and the box itself is apart of the capacity. The universe is like the box.

But then that means there's a finite capacity albeit very large capacity, not an infinite capacity.

wrong.. It would only make the universe a finite capacity, not that which it's expanding into lol. Space time is not the expansion of space son.. I think many people don't grasp this very fact. Our Universe is like our Milkyway Galaxy.. A flat disk floating in a much larger volume to which is infinite.

Okay...why is that infinite?

Refer back to the collapse of the sphere example. negative capacity or no capacity do not exist. It's that simple. Thus any point in space is relative and can not be stated as a beginning or an end to capacity because they are apart of the capacity (infinite volume).. So literal 0D doesn't exist or any relative point in space. It will always be an infinite volume for this very reason.

I didn't ask why the capacity is a negative or zero capacity.  I asked why it's not a finitely large capacity where we are unable to fathom its beginning or end?

The answer I gave you tells you why that is. The reason why you can't fathom a beginning or and end is because they don't exist. They are impossible to exist just because there is no beginning. If there is no beginning there is no end either. We only needed to solve one side of that argument to figure it out Wink
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #115 on: February 20, 2011, 08:33:10 PM »

A box laying on my floor has a finite capacity.. However the box is not the limit of capacity, and the box itself is apart of the capacity. The universe is like the box.

But then that means there's a finite capacity albeit very large capacity, not an infinite capacity.

wrong.. It would only make the universe a finite capacity, not that which it's expanding into lol. Space time is not the expansion of space son.. I think many people don't grasp this very fact. Our Universe is like our Milkyway Galaxy.. A flat disk floating in a much larger volume to which is infinite.

Okay...why is that infinite?

Refer back to the collapse of the sphere example. negative capacity or no capacity do not exist. It's that simple. Thus any point in space is relative and can not be stated as a beginning or an end to capacity because they are apart of the capacity (infinite volume).. So literal 0D doesn't exist or any relative point in space. It will always be an infinite volume for this very reason.

I didn't ask why the capacity is a negative or zero capacity.  I asked why it's not a finitely large capacity where we are unable to fathom its beginning or end?

The answer I gave you tells you why that is. The reason why you can't fathom a beginning or and end is because they don't exist. They are impossible to exist just because there is no beginning. If there is no beginning there is no end either. We only needed to solve one side of that argument to figure it out Wink

How do know there's no beginning or end?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #116 on: February 20, 2011, 08:38:05 PM »

Also, just to reiterate and be clear.  Are you saying there's no such thing as zero or negative energy?

No literal - energy would be correct.. Gravity is considered negative energy only in that it's an opposite force to expansion. Gravity is considered negative why expansion is considered positive. Thus the net energy is zero-point energy.. The energy of ground state.

Example:

A car traveling reverse is not traveling at a negative velocity, it's only traveling at a velocity opposite to forward velocity. The car still exists at rest to which represents it's point-zero energy (velocity). Thus the expansion of the universe is seen as the expansion of positive energy that exceeded the controlling force to contract (negative energy).. Push became more powerful than pull. Thus gave birth to the Universe and space time. You can google zero-energy calculator.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 08:45:13 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #117 on: February 20, 2011, 08:40:05 PM »

Quote

How do know there's no beginning or end?

Energy scale. Point of convergence has already been well understood.. No lengths do not exist. It's that simple Wink
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #118 on: February 20, 2011, 08:41:40 PM »

Quote

How do know there's no beginning or end?

Energy scale. Point of convergence has already been well understood.. No lengths do not exist. It's that simple Wink

I don't follow.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #119 on: February 20, 2011, 08:54:17 PM »

Quote

How do know there's no beginning or end?

Energy scale. Point of convergence has already been well understood.. No lengths do not exist. It's that simple Wink

I don't follow.

It's easy.. see contracting sphere example above..

Quote
Example:

If you took a sphere and tried to infinitely collapse it, it would reach a point of conversion (ground state). A point to where if you tried to continue to contract, it would converge every degree of it's circumference to polar opposites and then appear to expand again into a sphere. Hence, it can not contract into a negative dimensional object. The principle is very basic.. No object can exist in a negative capacity, or have absolute zero dimensional value.

The absence of no length or scale means there is no limit to size of scale. Scale is thus infinite in terms of volume size.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 09:00:39 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #120 on: February 20, 2011, 09:00:11 PM »

Quote

How do know there's no beginning or end?

Energy scale. Point of convergence has already been well understood.. No lengths do not exist. It's that simple Wink

I don't follow.

It's easy.. see contracting sphere example above..

Your contracting sphere example doesn't prove an infinite capacity.  It only proves there's a capacity that's causing negative pressure, but whether that capacity is finitely large or infinite is not so clear in your example.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #121 on: February 20, 2011, 09:01:49 PM »

Quote

How do know there's no beginning or end?

Energy scale. Point of convergence has already been well understood.. No lengths do not exist. It's that simple Wink

I don't follow.

It's easy.. see contracting sphere example above..

Your contracting sphere example doesn't prove an infinite capacity.  It only proves there's a capacity that's causing negative pressure, but whether that capacity is finitely large or infinite is not so clear in your example.

Actually it does. The sphere can not become a negative or literal 0 dimensional sphere lol. It's not difficult to comprehend at all "/
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 09:05:01 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #122 on: February 20, 2011, 09:04:18 PM »

Quote

How do know there's no beginning or end?

Energy scale. Point of convergence has already been well understood.. No lengths do not exist. It's that simple Wink

I don't follow.

It's easy.. see contracting sphere example above..

Your contracting sphere example doesn't prove an infinite capacity.  It only proves there's a capacity that's causing negative pressure, but whether that capacity is finitely large or infinite is not so clear in your example.

Actually it does. The sphere can not become a negative dimensional sphere lol. It's not difficult to comprehend at all "/

Yes, it's a positive dimensional sphere because of something expanding it (which has to be negative pressure).  The capacity of this negative pressure is finite.  It's not a hard concept to understand.  It sounds like what I do with my lungs.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #123 on: February 20, 2011, 09:12:03 PM »

Quote

Yes, it's a positive dimensional sphere because of something expanding it (which has to be negative pressure).  The capacity of this negative pressure is finite.  It's not a hard concept to understand.  It sounds like what I do with my lungs.

Wha? Something expanding and contracting a sphere is not the point of the discussion lol. Pressure is not what's being discussed here. It's spatial capacity (dimensional value). You are asking why spatial capacity is infinite, not what is causing a sphere to expand or contract in this example lol. It's being used for demonstration purposes to explain to you why there is no "beginning or end" to spatial capacity. It's simply solved by the fact that literal zero dimensional or negative dimensional lengths, objects, and things do not exist!  You can't have a sphere in negative dimensional values lol. there simply is no such thing as a negative capacity, volume, length, or thing. Thus there is no beginning or end to capacity.. And that is because the end of capacity could only result in no-capacity..And we already established why no-capacity doesn't exist. It's been established in science for a very long time now. :/

The exact physics of the Big Bang or the expansion of space time only deal with how did positive energy force exceed negative energy force to expand.. Thus giving birth to expansion of inertia (time) (space-time)..

We can look at it like this overly simplified analogy:
The quantum foam can be considered fragmented space time similar to popping bubbles in beer foam. So how did popping bubbles collect together to form a very large expanding bubble of time to which gave rise to matter? Well, there is a lot of physics behind it and we don't know for sure exactly how it happened from ground state and up. That's why they are investigating the Higgs field or the GOD particle... The problem is that we run the risk of destroying our selves in the process according to Steven Hawking.  Embarrassed   Though I doubt we could cause a Big Bang ourselves.. But you never know Wink
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 09:30:32 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #124 on: February 20, 2011, 09:41:03 PM »

So you proved positive capacity, but not an infinite positive capacity.

And what's causing the expansion if not the capacity itself?  Your sphere analogy makes it sounds so similar to a lungs analogy within intrapleural pressure.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 09:42:38 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #125 on: February 20, 2011, 09:49:53 PM »

So you proved positive capacity, but not an infinite positive capacity.

And what's causing the expansion if not the capacity itself?  Your sphere analogy makes it sounds so similar to a lungs analogy within intrapleural pressure.

Uhh.. if there is no negative capacity there can only ever be positive capacity.. An end to positive capacity under your argument could only occur if there could exist a negative capacity.. Well, the riddle was simply solved in that negative capacity can not have the capacity to exist. That horse had been beaten to death in science already. Smiley
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 09:51:12 PM by TheJackel » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #126 on: February 20, 2011, 09:51:33 PM »

So you proved positive capacity, but not an infinite positive capacity.

And what's causing the expansion if not the capacity itself?  Your sphere analogy makes it sounds so similar to a lungs analogy within intrapleural pressure.

Uhh.. if there is no negative capacity there can only ever be positive capacity.. An end to positive capacity under your argument could only occur if there could exist a negative capacity.. Well, the riddle was simply solved in that negative capacity can not have the capacity to exist. That horse had been beaten to death in science already. Smiley

So then that means there's a positive finite capacity.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #127 on: February 21, 2011, 12:14:10 AM »

So you proved positive capacity, but not an infinite positive capacity.

And what's causing the expansion if not the capacity itself?  Your sphere analogy makes it sounds so similar to a lungs analogy within intrapleural pressure.

Uhh.. if there is no negative capacity there can only ever be positive capacity.. An end to positive capacity under your argument could only occur if there could exist a negative capacity.. Well, the riddle was simply solved in that negative capacity can not have the capacity to exist. That horse had been beaten to death in science already. Smiley

So then that means there's a positive finite capacity.

No.. that means there is infinite positive capacity Wink..

---

However, we can look at your argument about us being finite as humans.. There is a fundamental error in trying to claim your GOD to be infinite and boundless. You are bounding it and individualizing it as separate from yourself. Thus is by nature finite itself. And then you contradict that by saying it's Omniscient. What boundaries are you attempting to draw here? And you wonder why I see you jockeying for Solipsism. :/
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 12:19:54 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,928


"My god is greater."


« Reply #128 on: February 21, 2011, 08:57:06 AM »

So you proved positive capacity, but not an infinite positive capacity.

And what's causing the expansion if not the capacity itself?  Your sphere analogy makes it sounds so similar to a lungs analogy within intrapleural pressure.

Uhh.. if there is no negative capacity there can only ever be positive capacity.. An end to positive capacity under your argument could only occur if there could exist a negative capacity.. Well, the riddle was simply solved in that negative capacity can not have the capacity to exist. That horse had been beaten to death in science already. Smiley

So then that means there's a positive finite capacity.

No.. that means there is infinite positive capacity Wink..

---

However, we can look at your argument about us being finite as humans.. There is a fundamental error in trying to claim your GOD to be infinite and boundless. You are bounding it and individualizing it as separate from yourself. Thus is by nature finite itself. And then you contradict that by saying it's Omniscient. What boundaries are you attempting to draw here? And you wonder why I see you jockeying for Solipsism. :/

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNCORRECT
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #129 on: February 21, 2011, 10:03:22 AM »

So you proved positive capacity, but not an infinite positive capacity.

And what's causing the expansion if not the capacity itself?  Your sphere analogy makes it sounds so similar to a lungs analogy within intrapleural pressure.

Uhh.. if there is no negative capacity there can only ever be positive capacity.. An end to positive capacity under your argument could only occur if there could exist a negative capacity.. Well, the riddle was simply solved in that negative capacity can not have the capacity to exist. That horse had been beaten to death in science already. Smiley

So then that means there's a positive finite capacity.

No.. that means there is infinite positive capacity Wink..

---

However, we can look at your argument about us being finite as humans.. There is a fundamental error in trying to claim your GOD to be infinite and boundless. You are bounding it and individualizing it as separate from yourself. Thus is by nature finite itself. And then you contradict that by saying it's Omniscient. What boundaries are you attempting to draw here? And you wonder why I see you jockeying for Solipsism. :/

I'm not talking about God.  I'm talking about spatial capacity.  You say that since there's no such thing as negative capacity, it has to be infinite.  That makes no sense to me.  There are negative large numbers and positive large numbers.

And your argument against God makes no sense either.  I'm arguing a boundless God, therefore He has to be finite.  That's like saying infinity is finite.

Well, if anything, I find it funny you're indirectly admitting that all nature is finite.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 10:06:33 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #130 on: February 21, 2011, 12:11:05 PM »

I think people are beginning to see the futility in debating someone who thinks he knows more than he really knows. Considering that TheJackal's arguments are purely based on "begging the question" type arguments and circular reasoning, what's the point?

For instance:

1) He defines omniscience a certain way and then has the audacity to claim he's omniscient without offerring any logical reason as to why we should accept his definition or accept the application of his definition. Instead, he uses teenage internet lingo to combat the most serious objections.

2) His argument about an infinite capacity is laughable at best, but only shows he should be pitied. He states, as though it's a matter of fact, that our universe is like another galaxy floating in a sea of infinite space and time. He states it as a fact, but this is actually a theory of a few fringe scientists, a theory that is so far on the fringe that many have stayed away from it. Why? Because (1) there's no proof for it and (2) there's no reason to think it's true.

Why is that? Because let's assume that energy (and therefore matter) are infinite and the universe functions just as he described. Under such a scenario, there's no reason to believe our universe would ever come about. If we have x and y and need to combine the two in order to get S, if they are an infinite distance from each other then they cannot come together. Why? By a simple thought experiment - imagine I tell you that around 9:00am this morning I finally reached 0 after counting down from infinity. You'd laugh because it's impossible to accomplish such a thing. Likewise, getting x and y to interact in an infinite spacial relationship is no different than counting down from infinity to 0. So if we did exist in an infinite spacial relationship to other supposed universes, then we wouldn't exist because there's no possible way something could have interacted with our universe's "pre-big Bang" state.

A second problem is that he uses "energy" as his god. But this puts him in a double-bind because there are three observable things about energy:

1) It is immaterial, which then begs the question of its origin and how it caused matter (not influenced it)

2) It is often the result of material, not the other way around (two asteroids colliding causes energy to appear)

3) When it is a cause on material movement, it is generally because there was material movement that influenced the energy to react a certain way that then caused it to act on new matter in a different way, etc. In other words, it's a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? matter or energy? Energy is a scientific mystery because we can't just say it's been swarming around for trillions of years - we only see energy when there is a movement of matter. Sans matter, there is no energy; the two seem tied up together.

A third problem is that matter is finite, so at some point matter had to be created[/b], thus he still falls under the problem of an infinite regress. Even if we buy that we exist in an infinite spacial relationship to everything else, matter must be created at some point, otherwise even in an infinite capacity he falls under an infinite regress. Now he'll try to escape this saying, "No, in an infinite capacity there is no infinite regress," but then he'll fail to explain this. He'll use examples that actually prove him wrong, but you'll never be able to show this to him.

A fourth problem is that energy can't exist without matter (or some other manifestation, whether it be a light proton or something else) because it's an immaterial force. Energy is a force, not a material substance, thus it is by definition the result of something and not the final cause (it can be the efficient cause, but not the final, which is a problem). In fact, energy is probably best summarized as, "the word we apply to effects we can't explain," or an abstract description. Energy is at the base of cause and effect, but if you read Jackal's arguments you'd be led to believe that energy is an actual substance, when it's not and no quantum physicist worth his weight would ever say it's a substance.

A fifth problem is, as alluded to previously, energy cannot be the final cause, but an accidental occurrence. Thus, he still has to deal with the teleological arguments.

A sixth problem is that he has to prove we exist within an infinite capacity. Considering that such an argument is logically absurd (as shown above) and that there's literally zero evidence for it (as almost any physicist will tell you that the Big Bang was the expansion of time and space; this isn't a misunderstanding, this is actually the mathematical teaching and confirmed by physics), we have no reason for believing we exist in an infinite capacity.

A seventh problem, tied to the sixth, is that he cannot prove we exist in an infinite capacity. If there are other universes beyond our universe and we exist in an infinite capacity, then by definition there is an infinite distance between us and the other universes. If this is the case, then we would never see or be able to observe even the effects of another universe.

An eighth problem is that, to my knowledge, no major physicist or scientist has proposed the theory the Jackal is proposing. Even Stephen Hawkings has gone to a great length to show how even though space and time expanded in Big Bang (he says this), this isn't proof of a finite beginning to our universe. We must ask ourselves why no scientist has even attempted to offer up the explanation the Jackal is offering up; does he hold some viewpoint that is too precious or too good for peer-reviewed article?

In all, the argument he puts forth - aside from lacking logical probability or any evidence - is an example of question begging. He can't disavow the Big Bang, so he redefines what it means (and does so incorrectly) and then says that we're just one universe existing in a multitude of others in an infinite space. But there's no evidence for this. So why make such an argument? Because if he doesn't, he must believe in God. If he is wrong, he has to look at the "God option," which is obviously something he's not willing to do.

Now, I've avoided making all these arguments for one simple reason; I see them as a waste of time. The Jackal is going to respond in some sophomoric fashion, using the terms "fail," "LOL," or do something equally absurd. He's going to repeat all the arguments he made and at the end of the day, if I try to respond it will be a complete waste of my time because I'll simply be repeating myself as well. He's not willing to be wrong on the idea that God exists, so what's the point? My pride (and no one else's) should be tied up in what some 18 or 19 year old thinks of their arguments concerning the existence of God, and he's stuck in his belief, unwilling to change it, so why waste time? Even this post was made to help those who may have doubts after reading his arguments, not really as a reply to him, because (not to beat a dead horse), I don't want to waste my time. 
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #131 on: February 21, 2011, 01:23:53 PM »

Sorry theo but you are incorrect. Wink jk

That was the problem I had with his infinite capacity argument, I have yet to find one credible physicist support it, let alone even find support. It's about the most desperate attempt to say God does not exist.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 01:24:21 PM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #132 on: February 21, 2011, 01:26:02 PM »

So you proved positive capacity, but not an infinite positive capacity.

And what's causing the expansion if not the capacity itself?  Your sphere analogy makes it sounds so similar to a lungs analogy within intrapleural pressure.

Uhh.. if there is no negative capacity there can only ever be positive capacity.. An end to positive capacity under your argument could only occur if there could exist a negative capacity.. Well, the riddle was simply solved in that negative capacity can not have the capacity to exist. That horse had been beaten to death in science already. Smiley

So then that means there's a positive finite capacity.

No.. that means there is infinite positive capacity Wink..

---

However, we can look at your argument about us being finite as humans.. There is a fundamental error in trying to claim your GOD to be infinite and boundless. You are bounding it and individualizing it as separate from yourself. Thus is by nature finite itself. And then you contradict that by saying it's Omniscient. What boundaries are you attempting to draw here? And you wonder why I see you jockeying for Solipsism. :/

I'm not talking about God.  I'm talking about spatial capacity.  You say that since there's no such thing as negative capacity, it has to be infinite.  That makes no sense to me.  There are negative large numbers and positive large numbers.

And your argument against God makes no sense either.  I'm arguing a boundless God, therefore He has to be finite.  That's like saying infinity is finite.

Well, if anything, I find it funny you're indirectly admitting that all nature is finite.

If you hadn't noticed, I split the two arguments Wink

Quote
You say that since there's no such thing as negative capacity, it has to be infinite.  That makes no sense to me.  There are negative large numbers and positive large numbers.

Since when is spatial capacity bound to negative and positive number systems? Do you even comprehend mathematics, or that you can create fallacies with mathematics when not used in proper context? Math is like a language, a description and explanation of what it is your are trying to describe. just because you can put a minus sign in front of a number doesn't means Capacity will magically exist as a negative capacity! o.O

Your argument is like saying you don't understand because large numbers can be used in an equation.. So under your argument a human being could eat an entire Blue Whale (real living whale) in -0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds without even having to take a moment to breath. Try again please.

Quote
That makes no sense to me.

How hard is it for you to understand basic English? The non-existence of no capacity, or no negative Capacity means no spatial boundaries that could possibly define a beginning or an end to positive capacity! It's not very difficult to understand.

Quote
I have yet to find one credible physicist support it

Try opening a Physics book Wink.. And your plea for credibility seems like you would auto dismiss any physicist to whom supports it. Guess what, they have a symbol for infinity for a reason. You might want to work on your failed argument.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 01:28:51 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #133 on: February 21, 2011, 03:39:43 PM »

Quote
1) He defines omniscience a certain way and then has the audacity to claim he's omniscient without offerring any logical reason as to why we should accept his definition or accept the application of his definition. Instead, he uses teenage internet lingo to combat the most serious objections.

I didn't define it, It's definition is stated as follows:

"Omniscience (pronounced /ɒmˈnɪsiəns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc."

Quote
Instead, he uses teenage internet lingo to combat the most serious objections.

Pleading with social dogma for credibility points based on a moral game isn't going to make that magically go away.


Quote
2) His argument about an infinite capacity is laughable at best, but only shows he should be pitied. He states, as though it's a matter of fact, that our universe is like another galaxy floating in a sea of infinite space and time. He states it as a fact, but this is actually a theory of a few fringe scientists, a theory that is so far on the fringe that many have stayed away from it. Why? Because (1) there's no proof for it and (2) there's no reason to think it's true.


It's not.. Your intentional inability to understand basic concepts such as capacity is not my problem, it is your problem.  I state it as fact because the fact has already been proven. And my argument bares far more supporting evidence than yours does for a magical imaginary friend in the sky made of nothing.. And your attempt to apply the same social dogma to scientists shows how weak your argument really is.

Quote
Why? Because (1) there's no proof for it and (2) there's no reason to think it's true.

Your use of fallacies is all the proof one needs to show your GOD doesn't exist.. Worse yet, you are an Atheist yourself when it comes to believing in any other GOD but your own. You might want to work on your arguments because they are indeed pleading.

Quote
Why is that? Because let's assume that energy (and therefore matter) are infinite and the universe functions just as he described. Under such a scenario, there's no reason to believe our universe would ever come about.

Positive, negative, and neutral.. The fact that energy can interfere with itself is all the proof required. Google the double slit experiment, or watch how your computer turns on. If science was wrong, your Computer wouldn't function. These same properties is what governs all information sir, you might want to get over it and deal with reality.

Quote
If we have x and y and need to combine the two in order to get S, if they are an infinite distance from each other then they cannot come together.

Who said two objects infinitely distant could magically come together? And why would you "need" to combine the two? You are making up your own baseless nonsense as an argument which shows why you are pleading for ignorance.

Quote
Why? By a simple thought experiment - imagine I tell you that around 9:00am this morning I finally reached 0 after counting down from infinity. You'd laugh because it's impossible to accomplish such a thing. Likewise, getting x and y to interact in an infinite spacial relationship is no different than counting down from infinity to 0. So if we did exist in an infinite spacial relationship to other supposed universes, then we wouldn't exist because there's no possible way something could have interacted with our universe's "pre-big Bang" state.

Your own little self-invented scenario doesn't make it at all relevant.. And it tells me that you have no idea what time is. However you can have objects interact over great distances.. And there is also this:

“Multiparticle interferometery and the superposition principle,” Phys. Today 46(Cool pp. 22-29 (1993).
N. D. Mermin, “Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody,” Am. J. Phys. 49(10) 940- 943 (1981).

Quote
So if we did exist in an infinite spacial relationship to other supposed universes, then we wouldn't exist because there's no possible way something could have interacted with our universe's "pre-big Bang" state.

This tells me you know nothing about physics.. Spatial capacity isn't made of nothing either. It's an infinite volume of energy greater than zero because it can't ever be literal zero Wink

 

Quote
A second problem is that he uses "energy" as his god. But this puts him in a double-bind because there are three observable things about energy:

1) It is immaterial, which then begs the question of its origin and how it caused matter (not influenced it)

2) It is often the result of material, not the other way around (two asteroids colliding causes energy to appear)

3) When it is a cause on material movement, it is generally because there was material movement that influenced the energy to react a certain way that then caused it to act on new matter in a different way, etc. In other words, it's a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? matter or energy? Energy is a scientific mystery because we can't just say it's been swarming around for trillions of years - we only see energy when there is a movement of matter. Sans matter, there is no energy; the two seem tied up together.

1) it's not immaterial
2) You have no idea what you are talking about. And yes, kenetic energy of two colliding asteroids can produce heat.
3) positive, negative, neutral energy properties. There is a reason why your computer turns on. The chicken or the Egg can not exist without being made of energy, and is irrelevant.

Scientists say the Chicken came first
Origin of Life Chicken-and-Egg Problem Solved

Quote
we only see energy when there is a movement of matter.

Good thing we understand what Planck scale, Thermodynamics, ground state, zero-point energy, ect are/

Quote
A third problem is that matter is finite, so at some point matter had to be created


Formed though the laws of physics. and the basic principles that govern everything (positive, negative, and neutral). No deity required.


Quote
thus he still falls under the problem of an infinite regress.

Hardly.. Your entire argument did a very poor job of trying to apply infinite regress. Especially when you so blatantly have no idea what you are even talking about.

Quote
Even if we buy that we exist in an infinite spacial relationship to everything else, matter must be created at some point, otherwise even in an infinite capacity he falls under an infinite regress.

The fact that energy can interfere with itself from ground state to reach more excited states that lead to matter doesn't mean matter "had to be created". Nor did you properly address infinite regress. And you clearly continue to ignore why consciousness requires more cause to exist than things that are not conscious Wink Please try again.  

Quote
Now he'll try to escape this saying, "No, in an infinite capacity there is no infinite regress,"

Infinite regress depends on the subject you are referring to.. And it's only a process to find ground state of anything to which you are talking about in order to find the base cause. It can only be solved by literal impossibles.. Capacity can not regress into a negative capacity.. especially when zero capacity has no capacity  to exist what-so-ever. So no! A -3D sphere can not exist, nor can any object exist in -dimensional values! It's the same reason why even in string theory the string can only ever be a 1 dimensional object at it's lowest possible dimensional value.. it could never reach a literal 0-dimensional or less value!


Quote
but then he'll fail to explain this. He'll use examples that actually prove him wrong, but you'll never be able to show this to him.

I explained it rather well, your comprehension skills need work, and you need to turn the ignore button to "off".
Quote
A fourth problem is that energy can't exist without matter (or some other manifestation, whether it be a light proton or something else) because it's an immaterial force.

TOTAL UTTER FACE PALM!. Open up a science book before you make such statements.

Quote
Energy is a force, not a material substance,

It's both.. All matter is energy in different states! The reside on the orders of magnitude on the energy scale! Again, please open up a science book before you make these statements that are just showing your ignorance of the subject.


A fifth problem is, as alluded to previously, energy cannot be the final cause, but an accidental occurrence. Thus, he still has to deal with the teleological arguments.


Really, show me a cause that doesn't require the fundamental properties (positive, negative, and neutral) to be actionable, functionality, processable, existent, or have informational value, or even be a "force".. Ahh yes, you think Nothing Done it!.  Roll Eyes

Quote
A sixth problem is that he has to prove we exist within an infinite capacity.


already did..

Quote
Considering that such an argument is logically absurd (as shown above) and that there's literally zero evidence for it (as almost any physicist will tell you that the Big Bang was the expansion of time and space; this isn't a misunderstanding, this is actually the mathematical teaching and confirmed by physics), we have no reason for believing we exist in an infinite capacity.

I have plenty evidence for it, you simply ignore the evidence, or you don't have the mental capacity to understand it. And no, the Big bang is the the expansion of "Space-time".. In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. The expansion of space-time is the expansion between negative (gravity) and positive energy (expansion) where the net energy is zero-point energy.

Quote
Space is 3D absent of time.. Space time is Space + time (collective inertia into a space time fabric). Dimensions are independent components of a coordinate grid needed to locate a point in a certain defined "space". In spacetime, a coordinate grid that spans the 3+1 dimensions locates events (rather than just points in space)i.e. time is added as another dimension to the coordinate grid. This way the coordinates specify where and when events occur. However, the unified nature of spacetime and the freedom of coordinate choice it allows imply that to express the temporal coordinate in one coordinate system requires both temporal and spatial coordinates in another coordinate system.Unlike in normal spatial coordinates, there are still restrictions for how measurements can be made spatially and temporally (see Spacetime intervals). These restrictions correspond roughly to a particular mathematical model which differs from Euclidean space in its manifest symmetry.Until the beginning of the 20th century, time was believed to be independent of motion, progressing at a fixed rate in all reference frames; however, later experiments revealed that time slowed down at higher speeds (with such slowing called "time dilation" explained in the theory of "special relativity" ).

Time has a lot to do with time particle dilation in relation to inertia and velocity. And a consciousness can not exist outside of time, because that would mean it would have no-time to exist, be a process, have function, or have to ability to actively process information. It would be like trying to argue consciousness is absolute suspended animation lol.

Quote
A seventh problem, tied to the sixth, is that he cannot prove we exist in an infinite capacity.

Science already did.. No capacity doesn't exist because it's simply impossible..Even a 4th grader can comprehend this.
Quote
If there are other universes beyond our universe and we exist in an infinite capacity, then by definition there is an infinite distance between us and the other universes. If this is the case, then we would never see or be able to observe even the effects of another universe.

If there is a universe an infinite distance from us, then I would think that would be an obvious DUH!.  Roll Eyes This has no relevance to that argument, nor is it a problem.

Quote
An eighth problem is that, to my knowledge, no major physicist or scientist has proposed the theory the Jackal is proposing.


Really?

You mean the same ones that say "Nothing isn't Nothing anymore" or the one's that measured our universe to be flat? And what scientist do you describe as major? One's that only conform to creationism? Or ones that actually figured out that the Universe can begin from ground state?.


Quote
Even Stephen Hawkings has gone to a great length to show how even though space and time expanded in Big Bang (he says this), this isn't proof of a finite beginning to our universe. We must ask ourselves why no scientist has even attempted to offer up the explanation the Jackal is offering up; does he hold some viewpoint that is too precious or too good for peer-reviewed article?

Einstein talked about me? It is Einstein that said "everything is vibration"

Quote
In quantum field theory, it can be shown that a wave of a particular wavelength acts mathematically like a quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator of the associated frequency - LaTeX Code: \\nu = \\frac{c}{\\lambda} . The energy of a quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator is given by LaTeX Code: E = h \\nu \\left (n + \\frac{1}{2} \\right ) , where h is Planck's constant (~6.6261e-34 Js) and n is the number of excitations of the oscillator. In the case of the Maxwell field, n is taken to be the number of photons of that particular wavelength. In the case where LaTeX Code: n = 0 , we see that there is still some amount of energy, LaTeX Code: E_0 = \\frac{h \\nu}{2} , in this particular mode of the field. All of this together leads to the conclusion that, there is an infinite ground state energy.

Sorry the equations don't here. This analysis applies to any wavelength we can consider. But, wavelength is a continuously varying quantity. This means that, even if we thought that there was a smallest possible wavelength and a largest possible wavelength, there would be an infinite number of wavelengths between those, each of which would contribute energy. Hence, -dimensional objects, negative capacity, no-capacity, ect do not exist because they can not exist!

Quote
In all, the argument he puts forth - aside from lacking logical probability or any evidence - is an example of question begging. He can't disavow the Big Bang, so he redefines what it means (and does so incorrectly) and then says that we're just one universe existing in a multitude of others in an infinite space. But there's no evidence for this. So why make such an argument? Because if he doesn't, he must believe in God. If he is wrong, he has to look at the "God option," which is obviously something he's not willing to do.

Fail. please take the time to open up a physics book or at least visit a physics community site.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 04:13:42 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #134 on: February 21, 2011, 03:50:50 PM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend) 

Your tone and approach are encouraging me to change my vote.  If you want to convince us that we're deluded, fine - I'll continue to disagree with you, and you with me.  However, your desire to do so rudely doesn't exactly encourage anyone to listen to you.  Go on with your blasphemy if you wish, but don't think anyone here will see your childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #135 on: February 21, 2011, 03:56:41 PM »

Logged


I'm going to need this.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #136 on: February 21, 2011, 04:07:12 PM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend)  

Your tone and approach are encouraging me to change my vote.  If you want to convince us that we're deluded, fine - I'll continue to disagree with you, and you with me.  However, your desire to do so rudely doesn't exactly encourage anyone to listen to you.  Go on with your blasphemy if you wish, but don't think anyone here will see your childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.

OK, You may feel free to continue believing that a GOD is made of nothing. I'm just being very direct in my approach, or blunt. Yes, you would be deluded if you actually think something can be made of nothing. However, that doesn't make you a bad person either. And of course I would get the "blasphemy" dogma  Roll Eyes Please prove anything I say is actually "blasphemous".. I don't see GOD coming down and backing up that assertion of yours, or giving me some friendly warning to watch what I have to say about this subject or discussion.  
Quote
childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.

Oh the hypocrisy here! "your face is a logical fallacy" to which includes your own quote above. Is this casting stones to feel better?

So let's clear this up here.. I come here for interesting debates, and when people start tossing above quotes around, the debates become childishly dogmatic on either side. I can be blunt, of direct to the point where it seem rude, but I tend not to start telling people that "your face is a logical fallacy" or start a moral dogmatic games.

« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 04:23:23 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #137 on: February 21, 2011, 04:08:42 PM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend) 

Your tone and approach are encouraging me to change my vote.  If you want to convince us that we're deluded, fine - I'll continue to disagree with you, and you with me.  However, your desire to do so rudely doesn't exactly encourage anyone to listen to you.  Go on with your blasphemy if you wish, but don't think anyone here will see your childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.

OK, You may feel free to continue believing that a GOD is made of nothing. I'm just being very direct in my approach, or blunt. Yes, you would be deluded if you actually think something can be made of nothing. However, that doesn't make you a bad person either. And of course I would get the "blasphemy" dogma  Roll Eyes Please prove anything I say is actually "blasphemous".. I don't see GOD coming down and backing up that assertion of yours, or giving me some friendly warning to watch what I have to say about this subject or discussion.  
Quote
childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.

Oh the hypocrisy here! "your face is a logical fallacy" to which doesn't include your own quote above. Is this casting stones to feel better?

So let's clear this up here.. I come here for interesting debates, and when people start tossing above quotes around, the debates become childishly dogmatic on either side. I can be blunt, of direct to the point where it seem rude, but I tend not to start telling people that "your face is a logical fallacy" or start a moral dogmatic games.


Fr. George never said "Your face is a logical fallacy".
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #138 on: February 21, 2011, 04:15:37 PM »

Quote from: TheJackel
And of course I would get the "blasphemy" dogma

Quote from: TheJackel
or start a moral dogmatic games.

You often get hung up on the way people use words, but you don't seem to be using the word "dogma" correctly. I realize it's something of an anti-Christian buzzword, but with your command of the English language I wouldn't have expected it from you...
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 04:17:13 PM by bogdan » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #139 on: February 21, 2011, 04:16:46 PM »

* Sorry the equations don't post here.

Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #140 on: February 21, 2011, 04:21:05 PM »

Quote from: TheJackel
And of course I would get the "blasphemy" dogma

You often get hung up on the way people use words, but you don't seem to be using the word "dogma" correctly. I realize it's something of an anti-Christian buzzword, but with your command of the English language I wouldn't have expected it from you...

I do use the word correctly. Blasphemy is religiously dogmatic. Commonly used by theists to discount an opposing view.

Quote
The term "dogmatic" can be used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly, including political [3] and scientific [4] beliefs.
Quote
Fr. George never said "Your face is a logical fallacy".

Never stated he did.. I posted that as another example to which included his own example. The intention was never to imply that he had.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 04:22:31 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #141 on: February 21, 2011, 04:23:40 PM »


Never stated he did.. I posted that as another example to which included his own example. The intention was never to imply that he had.
The person who said this was moderated.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #142 on: February 21, 2011, 04:25:33 PM »


Never stated he did.. I posted that as another example to which included his own example. The intention was never to imply that he had.
The person who said this was moderated.

I understand that, and I am just showing why his own comment wasn't much better.. However, I would prefer to cease personal slap shots on either side of the fence here. Yes, that includes myself. We can begin that ... Now! Smiley
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 04:26:34 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #143 on: February 21, 2011, 04:28:10 PM »

Oh the hypocrisy here! "your face is a logical fallacy" to which doesn't include your own quote above. Is this casting stones to feel better?

I hardly see how my telling you that your tone is inappropriate is hypocritical.  No stone cast, by the way - I didn't use any ad hominems,, just noted an infantile quality to your proclamations.  I know which post you've brought up with your quote, but I have a feeling that you've taken it far too personally - the phrase "your face is a logical fallacy" is a joke widely seen around the 'net.

So let's clear this up here.. I come here for interesting debates,

I sincerely doubt this, but I'll take your word at face-value for the moment.

and when people start tossing above quotes around, the debates become childishly dogmatic on either side. I can be blunt, of direct to the point where it seem rude, but I tend not to start telling people that "your face is a logical fallacy" or start a moral dogmatic games.

Again, you're off-base in your analysis of my post and/or my intentions.  There is no logical fallacy, dogmatic game, etc. when I inform you that your words are, by our definition (heck, by any reasonable definition), blasphemous.  I'm not calling you out for any logical fallacy - it's your opinion that, our "GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea;"  however, your assertion that it (and a number of your other statements) is not blasphemous is laughable.  Two non-Christian sources should suffice for now:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

You still haven't pointed out where I'm wrong or hypocritical in my assertions that:

- Your posts are rude and childish
- Your statements are blasphemous
- People here will not respect you (for being rude, childish, and/or blasphemous)

I'll not respond further in this thread, as I have indeed decided to change my vote to: "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion." from "Sure, at least it is providing a little insight."
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #144 on: February 21, 2011, 04:51:01 PM »

Oh the hypocrisy here! "your face is a logical fallacy" to which doesn't include your own quote above. Is this casting stones to feel better?

I hardly see how my telling you that your tone is inappropriate is hypocritical.  No stone cast, by the way - I didn't use any ad hominems,, just noted an infantile quality to your proclamations.  I know which post you've brought up with your quote, but I have a feeling that you've taken it far too personally - the phrase "your face is a logical fallacy" is a joke widely seen around the 'net.

So let's clear this up here.. I come here for interesting debates,

I sincerely doubt this, but I'll take your word at face-value for the moment.

and when people start tossing above quotes around, the debates become childishly dogmatic on either side. I can be blunt, of direct to the point where it seem rude, but I tend not to start telling people that "your face is a logical fallacy" or start a moral dogmatic games.

Again, you're off-base in your analysis of my post and/or my intentions.  There is no logical fallacy, dogmatic game, etc. when I inform you that your words are, by our definition (heck, by any reasonable definition), blasphemous.  I'm not calling you out for any logical fallacy - it's your opinion that, our "GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea;"  however, your assertion that it (and a number of your other statements) is not blasphemous is laughable.  Two non-Christian sources should suffice for now:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

You still haven't pointed out where I'm wrong or hypocritical in my assertions that:

- Your posts are rude and childish
- Your statements are blasphemous
- People here will not respect you (for being rude, childish, and/or blasphemous)

I'll not respond further in this thread, as I have indeed decided to change my vote to: "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion." from "Sure, at least it is providing a little insight."

You do realize that most of the stuff I posted here was never really addressed by any of you correct? Some yes, but the bulk of the arguments get simply ignored. Did anyone actually properly address the religious fallacy argument on Omniscience? Information theory? Most of what I have seen here have been deflective circular arguments that can best be said to state "God is beyond all that exists".. It's a tact that is used so one doesn't have to address contradiction in their beliefs, or positions.. It's one fallacy creation after another. It would be no different than me saying that "My God exist beyond your GOD and all that exists of all that is stated to exist".. That might be the source cause to why people are losing brain cells here today. The seemingly inability to properly address an argument.

So would anyone like to tackle the Omniscient argument properly? I would indeed appreciate the effort Smiley

Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #145 on: February 21, 2011, 05:08:25 PM »

So Let's try this one more time while maintaining a civil discussion on both sides Smiley I will try to be less rudely direct.


So In regards to the Definition of Omniscience I have posted here, we need to pay special attention to the words "infinite" and "everything", and then go define "Solipsism" while holding ourselves to Information theory discussed earlier (especially when information is the core to this argument) Smiley

 
Quote

So lets look at Omniscience from a Designers Perspective (as if you are the Omniscient GOD about to design and create something into existence. Such as a human being):

    1) I'm Omniscient

    2) I have an Idea of something I want to build, construct, or make existent

    3) I know infinitely everything about this thing, person, or place infinitely before, and infinitely after I have constructed it or even thought of it (key note: This is a logical fallacy because you can't create things from a position of Omniscience).. But we will roll with it here for sake of argument.

    A) I would know in my design everything it will infinitely ever do.

    B) I would know everything about my design's essence or being to the point of actually, and literally being that of my design (object, entity, thing, or place) in every infinitely literal way! (and we must pay close attention to the term infinite)

    C) I would know all the above infinitely in the past, present, and future.

    D) This thing I designed would only be able to do what it's was designed to do, and what I already infinitely know it will do, even to the point of it actually being me, and me doing all those things myself in every infinite way imaginable, and literally.

    E) Even if we wanted to create the logical fallacy that this thing would not be me under Omniscience, The thing itself still could never freely stray from it's predetermined fate in every infinite detail to which includes every feeling, thought, idea, emotion, action, reaction, ect. all the way down to the quantum level and substance from which it was made. That includes every infinite piece of data in regards to it's relation to every atom it's comprised of vs every other atom in existence. And infinitely so!

    So, this is why Omniscience is a logical fallacy. And technically, something that is Omniscient can't actually do anything at all because it infinitely would know, experienced, or seen everything infinitely, and infinitely in the past, present, and future. Thus something to which is conscious can not design or create anything to which it does not already know IF it is Omniscient by definition! Existence would at that point just be an infinite Picture in an infinite picture frame.. And that's not even the worst part of it, the following is even worse than the above:

    Omniscience would translate to GOD being existence itself in the best case possible, or everything that is existent in every infinite way. This is in accordance with:

    *Article: Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation


So how does that relate to:

1.) Being boundless
2.) Individualism (see also "being boundless")
3.) Solipsism (see also "individualism", and "boundless")
4.) Free will
5.) Free agency
6.) Infinite vs finite
8.) Containment
9.) Omnipotence
10.) All loving "unconditional Love"
11.) Information
12.) Time
13.) Consciousness
14.) The ability to create that which one doesn't already know.
15.) Do anything to which hasn't already been done.
16.) The ability to design and Create.
17.) Evil
18.) Satan (should you believe one exists)
19.) Death


I would appreciate replies that don't regress to circular arguments, or simply just state "GOD is incomprehensible".. I'm not interested in self-collapsing arguments. So I would appreciate some honest debate that doesn't just ignore the argument, but rather makes a genuine attempt at trying to explore the argument. Smiley So please go by the 19 points listed when considering Omniscience, and explain how they apply to omniscience and the example I have posted  Cool

Cheers!,
TheJackel
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 05:25:19 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #146 on: February 21, 2011, 05:30:09 PM »

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,255

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #147 on: February 21, 2011, 05:39:03 PM »

You've still yet to convince me, or anyone else, that materialism is the only logical or possible understanding of reality. And without that, we'll keep talking past each other when we say God is not material and thus doesn't fall under the rules of materiality. You keep saying to not be material is to not exist, but that only makes sense in a materialistic worldview.

How do you suggest we get past this?
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #148 on: February 21, 2011, 05:40:11 PM »

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.

Please address the argument Smiley
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,928


"My god is greater."


« Reply #149 on: February 21, 2011, 05:44:09 PM »

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.

Please address the argument Smiley

Have you ever been eaten by a giraffe? Why is your hair mischievous?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #150 on: February 21, 2011, 05:50:25 PM »

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.
Please address the argument Smiley
Have you ever been eaten by a giraffe? Why is your hair mischievous?

You like?  Cheesy


Why is this non-sensical?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #151 on: February 21, 2011, 05:55:29 PM »

You've still yet to convince me, or anyone else, that materialism is the only logical or possible understanding of reality. And without that, we'll keep talking past each other when we say God is not material and thus doesn't fall under the rules of materiality. You keep saying to not be material is to not exist, but that only makes sense in a materialistic worldview.

How do you suggest we get past this?

If you refuse to believe that nothing isn't anything, I can't convince you that nothing isn't anything. I know that seems confusing but I also had stated earlier that even if you thought information was immaterial you still can't deposit the logic of being made of nothing. being made of nothing would have no informational value, and thus wouldn't exist, it just remains a figment of your imagination or an ideological concept. Smiley If you wanted to say that it isn't made of nothing, it would start to put it in the realm of possibility. However, let's take these arguments one at a time and begin with the above argument that deals with omniscience. Smiley
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #152 on: February 21, 2011, 05:58:54 PM »

Quote
Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.

Without a GOD's existence it's impossible to please one.. However, I see that as a servitude to power argument :/ .. So much for the purpose of free will. If your GOD did not want to be displeased, I would think it would have been wise to make displeasure to his will impossible. Smiley Now please, if you will, address the posted argument in regards to omniscience properly. Wink
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 06:01:28 PM by TheJackel » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #153 on: February 21, 2011, 06:12:14 PM »

From St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

Chapter 12

In these things, then, have we been instructed by the
sacred sayings, as the divine Dionysius the Areopagite has
said, namely, that God is the Cause and Principle of all
things,
the Essence of things that are, the Life or the living,
the Reason of the rational, the Understanding of them that
have understanding, the Revival and the raising up of them
that fall away from Him, the Remaking and Reforming
of them that are by nature corruptible, the holy Support
of them that are tossed on an unholy sea, the sure Support
of them that stand, and the Way and the outstretched
guiding Hand to them that are drawn to Him. Moreover,
I shall add that He is the Father of them that have been
made by Him. For our God, who has brought us from nothing
into being, is more properly our Father than they who have
begotten us, but who have received from Him both their
being and their power to beget. He is the Shepherd of them
that follow after Him and are led by Him. He is the Illumina-
tion of the enlightened. He is the Initiation of the initiate. He
is the Godliness of the godly. He is the Reconciliation of them
that are at variance. He is the Simplicity of them that are
become simple. He is the Unity of them that seek unity. As
Principle of Principles He is the transcendent Principle of
every principle. He is the good Communication of His hidden
things, that is, of His knowledge, in so far as is allowable and
meets with the capacity of each individual.


Since the Divinity is incomprehensible, He must remain
absolutely nameless. Accordingly, since we do not know His
essence, let us not look for a name for His essence, for names
are indicative of what things are.
However, although God
is good and has brought us from nothing into being to share
His goodness and has given us knowledge, yet, since He did
not communicate His essence to us, so neither did He com-
municate the knowledge of His essence. It is impossible for
a nature to know a nature of a higher order perfectly;
but,
if knowledge is of things that are, then how will that which
is superessential be known? So, in His ineffable goodness He
sees fit to be named from things which are on the level of
our nature, that we may not be entirely bereft of knowledge
of Him but may have at least some dim understanding.
Therefore, in so far as He is incomprehensible, He is also
unnameable. But, since He is the cause of all things and
possesses beforehand in Himself the reasons and causes of all,

so He can be named after all things even after things which
are opposites, such as light and darkness, water and fire so
that we may know that He is not these things in essence, but
is superessential and unnameable. Thus, since He is the cause
of all beings, He is named after all things that are caused.


Wherefore, some of the divine names are said by negation
and show His superessentiality,
as when He is called 'Insub-
stantial, 'Timeless,' 'Without beginning,' 'Invisible' not
because He is inferior to anything or lacking in anything, for
all things are His and from Him and by Him were made
and in Him consist, but because He is pre-eminently set
apart from all beings.
The names that are given by negation
are predicated of Him as being the cause of all things. For,
in so far as He is the cause of all beings and of every essence,
He is called 'Being' and 'Essence.' As the cause of all reason
and wisdom, and as that of the reasoning and the wise, He
is called 'Wisdom' and 'Wise.' In the same way, He is called
'Mind' and 'Understanding', 'Life' and 'Living,' 'Might'
and 'Mighty,' and so on with all the rest. But especially may
He be named after those more noble things which approach
Him more closely. Immaterial things are more noble than
material, the pure more so than the sordid, the sacred more
so than the profane, and they approach Him more closely
because they participate in Him more.
Consequently, He may
be called sun and light much more suitably than darkness,
day more suitably than night, life more suitably than death,
and fire, air, and water (since these are life-giving) more
suitably than earth. And, above all, He may be called good-
ness rather than evil, which is the same thing as to say being
rather than non-being, because good is existence and the
cause of existence. These are all negations and affirmations,
but the most satisfactory is the combination of both, as, for
example, the 'superessential Essence,' 'the superdivine God-
head,' the 'Principle beyond all principles, and so on. There
are also some things which are affirmed of God positively, but
which have the force of extreme negation, as, for example,
darkness not because God is darkness, but because He is
light and more than light.

And so, God is called 'Mind, and 'Reason, and Spirit,'
and 'Wisdom, because He is the cause of these, and because
He is immaterial, and because He is all-working and all-
powerful.
And these names, both those given by negation
and those given by affirmation, are applied jointly to the
whole Godhead. They also apply in the same way, identically,
and without exception, to each one of the Persons of the
Holy Trinity. Thus, when I think of one of the Persons,
I know that He is perfect God, a perfect substance, but
when I put them together and combine them, I know one
perfect God. For the Godhead is not compounded, but is
one perfect, indivisible, and uncompounded being in three
perfect beings. However, whenever I think of the negation
of the Persons to one another, I know that the Father is
a supersubstantial sun, a well-spring of goodness, an abyss of
essence, reason, wisdom, power, light, and divinity, a beget-
ting and emitting well-spring of the good hidden in Himself.
Thus, He is 'Mind', 'Abyss of reason, 'Begetter of the Word',
and, through the Word, 'Emitter' of the revealing Spirit.
And, not to speak at too great length, the Father has no
reason, wisdom, power, or will other than the Son, who is
the only power of the Father and the primordial force of the
creation of all things. As a perfect hypostasis begotten of
a perfect hypostasis, in a manner which He alone knows,
is He who is the Son and is so called. Then there is the Holy
Ghost, a power of the Father revealing the hidden things
of the Godhead and proceeding from the Father through
the Son, not by begetting, but in a manner which He alone
knows. Wherefore the Holy Ghost is also perfecter of the
creation of all things. Consequently, whatsoever pertains to
the Father as cause, well-spring, and begetter must be attrib-
uted to the Father alone. Whatsoever pertains to the Son
as caused, begotten son, word, primordial force, will, and
wisdom must be attributed to the Son alone. And whatsoever
pertains to the caused, proceeding, revealing, and perfecting
power must be attributed to the Holy Ghost. The Father is
well-spring and cause of Son and Holy Ghost He is Father
of the only Son and Emitter of the Holy Ghost. The Son
is son, word, wisdom, power, image, radiance, and type of
the Father, and He is from the Father. And the Holy Ghost
is not a son of the Father, but He is the Spirit of the Father
as proceeding from the Father. For, without the Spirit, there
is no impulsion. And He is the Spirit of the Son, not as being
from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father
for the Father alone is Cause.



Chapter 13

Place is physical, being the limits of the thing containing
within which the thing contained is contained. The air, for
example, contains and the body is contained, but not all
of the containing air is the place of the contained body, but
only those limits of the containing air which are adjacent
to the contained body. And this is necessarily so, because the
thing containing is not in the thing contained.

However, there is also an intellectual place where the
intellectual and incorporeal nature is thought of as being
and where it actually is. There it is present and acts; and
it is not physically contained, but spiritually, because it has
no form to permit it to be physically contained. Now, God,
being immaterial and uncircumscribed, is not in a place.
For He, who fills all things and is over all things and Him-
self encompasses all things, is His own place. However, God
is also said to be in a place; and this place where God is said
to be is there where His operation is plainly visible. Now,
He does pervade all things without becoming mixed with
them, and to all things He communicates His operation in
accordance with the fitness and receptivity of each in accord-
ance with their purity of nature and will, I mean to say.
For
the immaterial things are purer than the material and the
virtuous more pure than such as are partisan to evil. Thus,
the place where God is said to be is that which experiences
His operation and grace to a greater extent. For this reason,
heaven is His Throne, because it is in heaven that the angels
are who do His will and glorify Him unceasingly. For heaven
is His resting place and the earth his footstool, because on
the earth He conversed in the flesh with men. And the
sacred flesh of God has been called His foot. The Church,
too, is called the place of God, because we have set it apart
for His glorification as a sort of hallowed spot in which we
also make our intercessions to Him. In the same way, those
places in which His operation is plainly visible to us, whether
it is realized in the flesh or out of the flesh, are called places
of God.

Moreover, one must know that the Divinity is without
parts and that He is wholly everywhere in His entirety, not
being physically distributed part for part, but wholly in all
things and wholly over the universe.


Although the angel is not contained physically in a place
so as to assume form and shape, he is said to be in a place
because of his being spiritually present there and acting
according to his nature, and because of his being nowhere
else but remaining spiritually circumscribed there where
he acts. For he cannot act in different places at the same time,
because only God can act everywhere at the same time. For
the angel acts in different places by virtue of a natural swift-
ness and his ability to pass without delay, that is, swiftly, from
place to place; but the Divinity being everywhere and beyond
all at the same time acts in different places by one simple
operation.


The soul is united with the body, the entire soul with
the entire body and not part for part. And it is not contained
by the body, but rather contains it, just as heat does iron,
and, although it is in the body, carries on its own proper
activities.

Now, to be circumscribed means to be determined by
place, time, or comprehension, while to be contained by none
of these is to be uncircumscribed. So the Divinity alone is
uncircumscribed, who is without beginning and without end,
who embraces all things and is grasped by no comprehension
at all. For He alone is incomprehensible, indefinable, and
known by no one; and He alone has a clear vision of Him-
self. The angel, however, is circumscribed by time, because
he had a beginning of being; and by place, even though it
be spiritually, as we have said before; and by comprehension,
because their natures are to some extent known to each
other and because they are completely defined by the Creator.
Bodies also are circumscribed by beginning, end, physical
place, and comprehension.


The Divinity, therefore, is absolutely unchangeable and
inalterable. For, all things which are not in our power He
predetermined by His foreknowledge, each one in its own
proper time and place. It is in this sense that it is said:
'Neither does the Father judge any man: but hath given
all judgment to the Son.' For, of course, the Father has
judged, and so has the Son of God, and so has the Holy Ghost.
But, as man, the Son Himself will come down in His body
and sit upon the throne of glory for both the coming down
and the sitting will be of His circumscribed body and
He will judge the whole world in equity.'

All things are far from God: not in place, but in nature.
With us, prudence and wisdom and counsel come and go
like habits, but that is certainly not the case with God. With
Him, nothing comes into being or ceases to be, and one
must not speak of accidents, because He is inalterable and
unchangeable. The good is concomitant to His essence. He
sees God who always longs for Him, for all things that are
are dependent upon Him who is, so that it is impossible for
anything to be, unless it have its being in Him who is. Indeed,
in so far as He sustains their nature, God is mixed in with all
things. God the Word, however, was united to His sacred
body hypostatically and was combined with our nature with-
out being mingled with it.

No one sees the Father, except the Son and the Spirit.

The Son is the counsel, the wisdom, and the power of the
Father. For we must not speak of quality in God, lest we
say that He is composed of substance and quality.

The Son is from the Father, and whatsoever He has He
has from Him. For that reason, He can do nothing of Him-
self. Thus, He has no operation that it is distinct from the
Father.

That God, although invisibile by nature, becomes visible
through His operations we know from the arrangement of
the world and from its governing.


The Son is image of the Father, and image of the Son is
the Spirit, through whom the Christ dwelling in man gives
it to him to be to the image of God.

The Holy Ghost is God. He is the median of the Unbegot-
ten and the Begotten and He is joined with the Father
through the Son. He is called Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ,
Mind of Christ, Spirit of the Lord, True Lord, Spirit of
adoption, freedom, and wisdom for He is the cause of all
these. He fills all things with His essence and sustains all
things. In His essence He fills the world, but in His power
the world does not contain Him.

God is substance eternal, unchangeable, creative of the
things that are, and to be adored with devout consideration.


The Father is also God. It is He who is ever-unbegotten,
because He was never begotten of anyone, but He has begot-
ten a co-eternal Son. The Son is also God. It is He who is
ever with the Father, having been begotten of Him time-
lessly, eternally, without change, without passion, and with-
out cease. The Holy Ghost is also God. He is a sanctifying
force that is subsistent, that proceeds unceasingly from the
Father and abides in the Son, and that is of the same sub-
stance as the Father and the Son.

The Word is He who is ever present with the Father sub-
stantially. In another sense, a word is the natural movement
of the mind, by which the rnind moves and thinks and
reasons, as if it were the light and radiance of the mind. And
again, a word is that internal thought which is spoken in
the heart. Still again, there is the spoken word which is
a messenger of the mind. Now, God the Word is both sub-
stantial and subsistent, while the other three kinds of word
are faculties of the soul and are not found to exist in their
own hypostases. The first of these is a product of the mind,
ever springing naturally from the mind. The second is called
internal, and the third called spoken.

The term 'spirit' is understood in several ways. There is
the Holy Spirit. And the powers of this Holy Spirit are also
called spirits. The good angel is likewise a spirit, and so is
the demon and the soul. There are times when even the
mind is called spirit. The wind is also a spirit, and so is the air.



Chapter 14

The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound-
less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the
just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the
uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi-
nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing,
the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the
almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com-
municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and
the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by
His nature. They are not received from any other source;
on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good
to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each.


The abiding and resting of the Persons in one another
is not in such a manner that they coalesce or become confused,
but, rather, so that they adhere to one another, for they are
without interval between them and inseparable and their
mutual indwelling is without confusion. For the Son is in
the Father and the Spirit, and the Spirit is in the Father and
the Son, and the Father is in the Son and the Spirit, and
there is no merging or blending or confusion. And there is
one surge and one movement of the three Persons. It is
impossible for this to be found in any created nature.

Then there is the fact that the divine irradiation and
operation is one, simple, and undivided; and that, while it is
apparently diversely manifested in divisible things, dispensing
to all of them the components of their proper nature, it
remains simple. Indivisibly, it is multiplied in divisible things,
and, gathering them together, it reverts them to its own
simplicity. For, toward Him all things tend, and in Him
they have their existence, and to all things He communicates
their being in accordance with the nature of each. He is the
being of things that are, the life of the living, the reason
of the rational, and the intelligence of intelligent beings. He
surpasses intelligence, reason, life, and essence.


And then again, there is His pervading of all things with-
out Himself being contaminated, whereas nothing pervades
Him. And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by
a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing
with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things
at once, both present and past and future, before they come
to pass. And there is His sinlessness, His forgiving of sins
and saving. And, finally, there is the fact that all that He
wills He can do, even though He does not will all the things
that He can do for He can destroy the world, but He does
not will to do so.


...

We believe in Father and Son and Holy Spirit; one Godhead in three hypostases;one will, one operation, alike in three persons; wisdom incorporeal, uncreated, immortal, incomprehensible, without beginning, unmoved, unaffected, without quantity, without quality, ineffable, immutable, unchangeable, uncontained, equal in glory, equal in power, equal in majesty, equal in might, equal in nature, exceedingly substantial, exceedingly good, thrice radiant, thrice bright, thrice brilliant. Light is the Father, Light the Son, Light the Holy Spirit; Wisdom the Father, Wisdom the Son, Wisdom the Holy Spirit; one God and not three Gods; one Lord, the Holy Trinity, discovered in three hypostases. Father is the Father, and unbegotten; Son is the Son, begotten and not unbegotten, for He is from the Father; Holy Spirit, not begotten but proceeding, for He is from the Father. There is nothing created, nothing of the first and second order, nothing of lord and servant; but there is unity and trinity - there was, there is, and there shall be forever - which is perceived and adored by faith - by faith, not by inquiry, nor by searching out, nor by visible manifestation: for the more He is sought out, the more He is unknown, and the more He is investigated, the more He is hidden.



TheJackel, I think you should take a gander at this and get back to us later: http://www.archive.org/details/fathersofthechur009511mbp
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 06:29:10 PM by bogdan » Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,255

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #154 on: February 21, 2011, 06:19:00 PM »

You've still yet to convince me, or anyone else, that materialism is the only logical or possible understanding of reality. And without that, we'll keep talking past each other when we say God is not material and thus doesn't fall under the rules of materiality. You keep saying to not be material is to not exist, but that only makes sense in a materialistic worldview.

How do you suggest we get past this?

If you refuse to believe that nothing isn't anything, I can't convince you that nothing isn't anything. I know that seems confusing but I also had stated earlier that even if you thought information was immaterial you still can't deposit the logic of being made of nothing. being made of nothing would have no informational value, and thus wouldn't exist, it just remains a figment of your imagination or an ideological concept. Smiley If you wanted to say that it isn't made of nothing, it would start to put it in the realm of possibility. However, let's take these arguments one at a time and begin with the above argument that deals with omniscience. Smiley

I refuse to believe it because the definition of "nothing" is one derived from observing the material world, not an abstract principle that has to logically apply to all reality. Yes, to be without information is nonsensical...to material things. Do you see the difference? The facts that you've assembled only apply to material things. This I'm okay with. But you need to convince me that materiality is the only possible way to exist, and you've not done that.

It's like your starting point is, "Well, we know things can only exist if they have information..." to which everyone here is replying, "Yes, when speaking about material things." See, material things, or informational things, or however you want to put it are all that we can observe. That's fine. What Christians are saying, however, is that we believe Jesus Christ to have been the manifestation of the immaterial God, who we otherwise never would've found. I know it sounds absurd to people who don't believe it, but we'd say we believe in God because of Divine Revelation, in its various forms.

It's almost as if you think Christians believe in God because we don't think certain things can be "explained" when really, we believe because of personal experience. Now, you can take issue with that, but nobody is saying, "You should believe in God because I have experienced him." That should be rightly scoffed at.

Anyway, I know I brought up a bunch of different things there, but everyone keeps talking past one another and it helps to understand what both sides are trying to say.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #155 on: February 21, 2011, 06:21:48 PM »

Before I get to that, should I explain why God requires faith?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #156 on: February 21, 2011, 06:29:51 PM »

You've still yet to convince me, or anyone else, that materialism is the only logical or possible understanding of reality. And without that, we'll keep talking past each other when we say God is not material and thus doesn't fall under the rules of materiality. You keep saying to not be material is to not exist, but that only makes sense in a materialistic worldview.

How do you suggest we get past this?

If you refuse to believe that nothing isn't anything, I can't convince you that nothing isn't anything. I know that seems confusing but I also had stated earlier that even if you thought information was immaterial you still can't deposit the logic of being made of nothing. being made of nothing would have no informational value, and thus wouldn't exist, it just remains a figment of your imagination or an ideological concept. Smiley If you wanted to say that it isn't made of nothing, it would start to put it in the realm of possibility. However, let's take these arguments one at a time and begin with the above argument that deals with omniscience. Smiley

I refuse to believe it because the definition of "nothing" is one derived from observing the material world, not an abstract principle that has to logically apply to all reality. Yes, to be without information is nonsensical...to material things. Do you see the difference? The facts that you've assembled only apply to material things. This I'm okay with. But you need to convince me that materiality is the only possible way to exist, and you've not done that.

It's like your starting point is, "Well, we know things can only exist if they have information..." to which everyone here is replying, "Yes, when speaking about material things." See, material things, or informational things, or however you want to put it are all that we can observe. That's fine. What Christians are saying, however, is that we believe Jesus Christ to have been the manifestation of the immaterial God, who we otherwise never would've found. I know it sounds absurd to people who don't believe it, but we'd say we believe in God because of Divine Revelation, in its various forms.

It's almost as if you think Christians believe in God because we don't think certain things can be "explained" when really, we believe because of personal experience. Now, you can take issue with that, but nobody is saying, "You should believe in God because I have experienced him." That should be rightly scoffed at.

Anyway, I know I brought up a bunch of different things there, but everyone keeps talking past one another and it helps to understand what both sides are trying to say.

My principles apply even if you think they were non-material. That includes information theory, and how that deals with complexity, consciousness ect. The only fundamental difference between my position and yours is that I consider information material and you would consider it non-material.. This however does nothing to address the issue because the state of information is in, is not relevant to the base of the argument Smiley It still doesn't address the omniscience problem either. :/

Quote
As
Principle of Principles He is the transcendent Principle of
every principle.

This is a self-contradiction.. it's equal to saying GOD creates existence and self so he himself can exist. I'm sorry, but that one bit collapses everything else in what you have posted Sad .. Or it's saying that principle created principle into existence so a principle can exist :/ .. This of course doesn't take the time to consider what consciousness requires to exist either, it assumes infinite regress can not be applied even though we know that the state of no consciousness exists, things we can measure and weigh into what they lack to be capable of consciousness. Thus no mind can be a principle of principles, or transcendent of every principle. It is slave to require informational complexity, value, and substance (whether or not you think it's immaterial or material) in order to have consciousness. Minds can not also exist without time, because without time there can be no ability to have a thought process in an absolute state of pure suspended animation. So, I disagree with the quoted statement because it's logically not possible.. The basic principle of all principles is information, and the base of all information to complex would still reside on the 3 fundamental laws to which are the base to all causation (positive, negative, and neutral). Even a GOD would require a complex finite structure capable of processing other information to support a consciousness as an individual apart from all other states of consciousness. Trying to state otherwise is what I consider making an argument for Solipsism.
Quote
And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by
a simple act of knowing.

This is self-admitting a cause to his own existence. And knowing is an action that requires a cause, and the cause is the information to which it is slave to require to even know itself would exist, or simply exist at all. The base principle is not that which is slave to require, but that which is the substance of all that has a requirement. Thus it is not the individual conscious entity that is the base principle. Consciousness thus requires far more complexity and cause to support than the state of unconsciousness or no consciousness simply because infinite regress shows that informational complexity exists in both states, or all states. Thus we can prove by example that Consciousness can not solve infinite regress or even be a base principle to all principles.
 
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 06:56:34 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #157 on: February 21, 2011, 07:09:29 PM »

Consciousness is an emerging property of information.. We all require these very basic laws and principles to exist regardless if you believe them to be material or not. Smiley

Information is like an infinite box of legos. Informational structure above it's ground state in any system or concept has and requires cause. Thus requires more Legos to support it's existence as a structure, object, entity or thing. Minds are highly complex, and will require more cause to support than those things without minds. Thus more legos are needed to support a mind, it's processes, and it's fundamental basics to which can support a state of awareness. However, I am still waiting for someone to respond to Omniscience and how even the argument presented here applies to it. Smiley

Chapter 14 is definitely arguing for solipsism.

Quote
Solipsism (pronounced /ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified

Thus we are all conscious figments of GODS consciousness arguing on whether or not we exist..err I exist. :<

« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 07:17:21 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #158 on: February 21, 2011, 07:30:39 PM »

Consciousness is an emerging property of information.. We all require these very basic laws and principles to exist regardless if you believe them to be material or not. Smiley

Information is like an infinite box of legos. Informational structure above it's ground state in any system or concept has and requires cause. Thus requires more Legos to support it's existence as a structure, object, entity or thing. Minds are highly complex, and will require more cause to support than those things without minds. Thus more legos are needed to support a mind, it's processes, and it's fundamental basics to which can support a state of awareness. However, I am still waiting for someone to respond to Omniscience and how even the argument presented here applies to it. Smiley

Chapter 14 is definitely arguing for solipsism.

Quote
Solipsism (pronounced /ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/) is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified

Thus we are all conscious figments of GODS consciousness arguing on whether or not we exist..err I exist. :<


You know... the only place that I have ever seen infromation come from is an intelligent mind. So if you want to suggest that information is the fundamental principal of everything in our universe, then ultimately you must deduce that the first cause of our universe is an intelligent being... Just saying.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #159 on: February 21, 2011, 08:09:46 PM »

Quote
You know... the only place that I have ever seen infromation come from is an intelligent mind. So if you want to suggest that information is the fundamental principal of everything in our universe, then ultimately you must deduce that the first cause of our universe is an intelligent being... Just saying.

I can understand your position there but I do have a major problem with that position. And I have myself thought a lot about that. However, the following is why I have ruled intelligence out as the source of information.  It still requires it as a base mechanism.. You can't intelligently do anything without first being information to apply to do anything with. :/
 
Quote
INTELLIGENCE:

1) Intelligence is only The ability to apply knowledge in order to perform better in an environment. Or the processing of knowledge to formulate a response to stimuli..

2) Wiki: "Intelligence (abbreviated int. or intel.) refers to discrete information with currency and relevance, and the abstraction, evaluation, and understanding of such information for its accuracy and value"

But you first must be aware before you can apply anything by means of an intelligent process.

Quote
AWARENESS:

“Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sensed data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. To receive and respond to input.” Without information, value, or material physical property there can be no base to support an awareness.

Ignoring for a moment the "physical material" in that, An awareness requires a base of inquiry (information), and the means to sense and process information in order to be aware. This means it would also require some informational structure capable of processing other information. Something like a brain or a computer processor connected to senses. Otherwise consciousness, awareness, or intelligence can not exist, function, or be of process. Minds are only observers and processors of information to which they themselves are a complex structure of. No mind can solve infinite regress, or be the base principle of principles. They are thus an emerging property to which requires a lot of cause and complexity in order to exist, function, or be in process.  Cool

So a good mind excecise is :

1) how am I aware?
2) What information do I require to be aware?
3) How do I do anything without information first to apply?
4) Can I make a Choice or decision without information on any choices or decisions to which I could choose or decide from?
5) Where am I.. I can't be no where literally! So why am I here? And where is Here?
6) Can I feel, respond or have emotion without information to process, feel, respond to, or understand?
7) Can I have an experience without information?
Cool what is information?
9) why do I require it?

This is why these two points in my article on information theory are very important to this discussion:
Quote
1) I =: reference to all information that gives I an Identity, substance, dimension, value, an awareness, an existence, an intelligence, or a consciousness.

2) Information =: the very core cause to everything, and to which also gives things like consciousness value, existence, substance, complexity, structure, ability, intelligence, knowledge, awareness, the ability to choose, the ability to make decisions, the ability to think, the ability to do, have free will (to some extent), or to be what it is entirely. Without it, there can seem to be no possible existence, and that is impossible since nothing can not literally ever exist under literal context.

So it's not really relevant if you want to state it as non-material or not (though it can't be non-material because information can't be made of nothing either). Information is made of itself, and is the substance and base principle to everything. It is the cause of all causation because not a single thing could exist without it. We are all slaves to require informational value.



  

 
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 08:20:00 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Saint Iaint
This Poster Has Ignored Multiple Requests to Behave Better
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Once Delivered
Posts: 625


The Truth Shall Be Reviled


WWW
« Reply #160 on: February 21, 2011, 08:22:24 PM »

One of the options Papist should have been considering when setting up this poll is:

'Yes, continuing this debate gives me an opportunity to present Christ to The Jackel'

Many people (like TheJackal) think they know the Gospel... but they really don't.

He is rejecting the twisted Western version of it. Well... He should!

When I was younger, I too rejected what I thought was Christianity... I never understood back then that I really had no clue when it came to the TRUE Gospel and TRUE Christianity.

I thought I knew what I was talking about... but now I am forced to admit that I didn't.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Anyhow, for TheJackel,

I see you're still saying that 'nothingness' cannot exist.

I mentioned 'Dark Matter' and the 'God-Particle' to you (which you acknowledged but sorta skimmed over)... Your version of the Cosmos requires these things to exist... yet they are 'nothing'.

These things (if they exist) prove that not only can 'nothing' exist - but that 'nothing' is indeed 'something', that something/nothing is everywhere and is in fact what everything is made up of (in part).

So God may be physically 'nothing' (according to our limited comprehension) but He is actually everything and is the Light that holds everything together.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

You also never replied RE: the 'Orthodox Ireland' audio lecture I posted here above for you...

Did you listen to it?... It doesn't sound like you did!

You should.

I have a couple more questions for you too... I'll just start with this one:

1. Is the Universe expanding?


†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Logged

Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute...

Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
theo philosopher
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315



« Reply #161 on: February 21, 2011, 08:24:20 PM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend) 

Your tone and approach are encouraging me to change my vote.  If you want to convince us that we're deluded, fine - I'll continue to disagree with you, and you with me.  However, your desire to do so rudely doesn't exactly encourage anyone to listen to you.  Go on with your blasphemy if you wish, but don't think anyone here will see your childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.

Exactly Fr. George. I should have been wise enough not to enter into the fray.
Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #162 on: February 21, 2011, 08:31:42 PM »

One of the options Papist should have been considering when setting up this poll is:

'Yes, continuing this debate gives me an opportunity to present Christ to The Jackel'

Many people (like TheJackal) think they know the Gospel... but they really don't.

He is rejecting the twisted Western version of it. Well... He should!

When I was younger, I too rejected what I thought was Christianity... I never understood back then that I really had no clue when it came to the TRUE Gospel and TRUE Christianity.

I thought I knew what I was talking about... but now I am forced to admit that I didn't.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Anyhow, for TheJackel,

I see you're still saying that 'nothingness' cannot exist.

I mentioned 'Dark Matter' and the 'God-Particle' to you (which you acknowledged but sorta skimmed over)... Your version of the Cosmos requires these things to exist... yet they are 'nothing'.

These things (if they exist) prove that not only can 'nothing' exist - but that 'nothing' is indeed 'something', that something/nothing is everywhere and is in fact what everything is made up of (in part).

So God may be physically 'nothing' (according to our limited comprehension) but He is actually everything and is the Light that holds everything together.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

You also never replied RE: the 'Orthodox Ireland' audio lecture I posted here above for you...

Did you listen to it?... It doesn't sound like you did!

You should.

I have a couple more questions for you too... I'll just start with this one:

1. Is the Universe expanding?


†IC XC†
†NI KA†


Problem is, I conflict with that because I require information to know anything.. The Gospel doesn't address the problem, it's just more stuff that requires information to be stuff or even have meaning, even if it's fallacious, or a myth. :/ I can not equate anything to being GOD except the substance of existence itself! And that is to which we are all made of, and come from. Smiley It's the substance to which gives value and has value to which is the base principle of all principles, not that which requires it in order to do, breath, think, act, or exist. :/ There is no answer in religion that can grapple with this. But this doesn't mean a God of sorts doesn't exist, as there are many concepts of GOD and GODS. Human's can be considered GODS for creating synthetic life "/


Quote
I mentioned 'Dark Matter' and the 'God-Particle' to you (which you acknowledged but sorta skimmed over)... Your version of the Cosmos requires these things to exist... yet they are 'nothing'.
In Cosmology, they are not stating they are made of nothing, or are nothing Smiley.. They used to think empty space was nothing, but thanks to advancements in science "nothing isn't nothing anymore".. It's an inside joke, or phrase to say that they have figured out that space isn't made of nothing. Quantum physics (proven theory in such things as  quantum computing) has long kicked that horse to the curb to be left for dead Smiley
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 08:50:47 PM by TheJackel » Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #163 on: February 21, 2011, 08:42:43 PM »

double post delete
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 08:47:20 PM by TheJackel » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #164 on: February 21, 2011, 08:48:13 PM »

So go ahead and continue saying your god isn't made of anything.. It just makes it all the more apparent that your GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea. (an imaginary friend) 

Your tone and approach are encouraging me to change my vote.  If you want to convince us that we're deluded, fine - I'll continue to disagree with you, and you with me.  However, your desire to do so rudely doesn't exactly encourage anyone to listen to you.  Go on with your blasphemy if you wish, but don't think anyone here will see your childish rants like this as being anything more than an infantile tantrum.

Exactly Fr. George. I should have been wise enough not to enter into the fray.
To be fair to Jackel, he did apologize and wanted to start over again.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #165 on: February 21, 2011, 09:01:27 PM »

Jackel there are too many topics in this thread to discuss in full individually, you want to start with divine omniesnce? What part do you have an issue with? The capability to know everything infinitely? The limitations of free will due to such knowledge?

Let's start with the basics. And you want to address orthonorm's thread?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #166 on: February 21, 2011, 09:13:12 PM »

Jackel there are too many topics in this thread to discuss in full individually, you want to start with divine omniesnce? What part do you have an issue with? The capability to know everything infinitely? The limitations of free will due to such knowledge?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33828.msg535748.html#msg535748

It's well outlined there. Smiley

There are several issues it addresses but one of the main ones is that Omniscience would include knowing me in every infinite detail to the point to which the supposed omniscient deity would have to literally be me in every infinite way possible. Omniscience would thus be arguing for pure solipsism. And oddly conveyed in Chapter 14 in the above post by bogdan.

But to further express problems with it,  it also means that said deity can not create anything without knowing everything it will ever do, think, feel, experience, or choose. There can be no free will under omniscience. I could never stray from a path to which it would not already know I would take regardless of what I think I could choose to take. All purpose becomes lost actually because one can not create from a position of infinitely knowing everything there infinitely is, or could be known. Thus omniscience is a self-collapsing paradox to which also defies omnipotence because one can't create new information to which it could not know from a position of infinitely knowing everything.

It gets worse if you claim the deity to be infinite itself, and boundless.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 09:36:52 PM by TheJackel » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485



« Reply #167 on: February 21, 2011, 09:56:19 PM »

Oh the hypocrisy here! "your face is a logical fallacy" to which doesn't include your own quote above. Is this casting stones to feel better?

I hardly see how my telling you that your tone is inappropriate is hypocritical.  No stone cast, by the way - I didn't use any ad hominems,, just noted an infantile quality to your proclamations.  I know which post you've brought up with your quote, but I have a feeling that you've taken it far too personally - the phrase "your face is a logical fallacy" is a joke widely seen around the 'net.

So let's clear this up here.. I come here for interesting debates,

I sincerely doubt this, but I'll take your word at face-value for the moment.

and when people start tossing above quotes around, the debates become childishly dogmatic on either side. I can be blunt, of direct to the point where it seem rude, but I tend not to start telling people that "your face is a logical fallacy" or start a moral dogmatic games.

Again, you're off-base in your analysis of my post and/or my intentions.  There is no logical fallacy, dogmatic game, etc. when I inform you that your words are, by our definition (heck, by any reasonable definition), blasphemous.  I'm not calling you out for any logical fallacy - it's your opinion that, our "GOD isn't anything other than just a fantasized idea;"  however, your assertion that it (and a number of your other statements) is not blasphemous is laughable.  Two non-Christian sources should suffice for now:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

You still haven't pointed out where I'm wrong or hypocritical in my assertions that:

- Your posts are rude and childish
- Your statements are blasphemous
- People here will not respect you (for being rude, childish, and/or blasphemous)

I'll not respond further in this thread, as I have indeed decided to change my vote to: "Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion." from "Sure, at least it is providing a little insight."

You do realize that most of the stuff I posted here was never really addressed by any of you correct? Some yes, but the bulk of the arguments get simply ignored. Did anyone actually properly address the religious fallacy argument on Omniscience? Information theory? Most of what I have seen here have been deflective circular arguments that can best be said to state "God is beyond all that exists".. It's a tact that is used so one doesn't have to address contradiction in their beliefs, or positions.. It's one fallacy creation after another. It would be no different than me saying that "My God exist beyond your GOD and all that exists of all that is stated to exist".. That might be the source cause to why people are losing brain cells here today. The seemingly inability to properly address an argument.

So would anyone like to tackle the Omniscient argument properly? I would indeed appreciate the effort Smiley



Come to my agora, Jackel.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #168 on: February 21, 2011, 10:44:57 PM »

The problem here is your definition of Omnescience. "Knowing all that can be known" is a horrible definition. Suppose, for instance, that skepticism of the strongest modal sort turns out to be true. Suppose that it is logically impossible for anyone to know anything. In that case, the above definition would entail that rocks are omniscient!

Omniscience simply means that God knows all things that are knowable. Philosophers agree that God doesn't know what a square circle looks like.

So, if my future decisions are unknowable, then omniscience doesn't violate if God doesn't know it.

« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 10:47:41 PM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #169 on: February 21, 2011, 10:51:47 PM »

Quote
Come to my agora, Jackel.

I have already made a premise that we seek friendlier discourse Smiley

Now in regards to the rest of your post:

Quote
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

Now what I say may be blasphemous, or a case of blasphemy to your religion (anything not sharing it's view is), but for it to have any real meaning it must be validated, or substantiated by the horse itself. Aka the Existence of the GOD must be established for it to bare any kind relevance. Your argument could be considered blasphemous to other peoples religious beliefs. So it's pretty much a useless or moot argument to make :/ It's pretty much vilifying difference of opinion on these subjects being discussed, and assuming a difference of opinion or belief is "insulting, showing contempt, or lack of reverence for a GOD". The more extreme elements of Christianity take it a bit further and start comparing anyone being blasphemous to being evil, murder, a rapist ect. However, it would be egotistical or narcissistic of a god to even think it matters if someone believed in him or not. So I always wondered as a teenager if he create us to worship himself. So you can see why I don't follow religion anymore.  So why create free will while fully knowing the consequences of that action? It would be no fault but that which made it possible to happen. Not knowing every consequence of that would lead to questions of his omniscience and power. It would be like calling dolphins abominations because they have same sex interactions. It's silly in my opinion on logical reasons alone  Embarrassed

Though I do want to know how you have "blasphemous" individuals in relation to an omniscient deity. o.O
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485



« Reply #170 on: February 21, 2011, 10:56:42 PM »

Quote
Come to my agora, Jackel.

I have already made a premise that we seek friendlier discourse Smiley

Now in regards to the rest of your post:

Quote
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

Now what I say may be blasphemous, or a case of blasphemy to your religion (anything not sharing it's view is), but for it to have any real meaning it must be validated, or substantiated by the horse itself. Aka the Existence of the GOD must be established for it to bare any kind relevance. Your argument could be considered blasphemous to other peoples religious beliefs. So it's pretty much a useless or moot argument to make :/ It's pretty much vilifying difference of opinion on these subjects being discussed, and assuming a difference of opinion or belief is "insulting, showing contempt, or lack of reverence for a GOD". The more extreme elements of Christianity take it a bit further and start comparing anyone being blasphemous to being evil, murder, a rapist ect. However, it would be egotistical or narcissistic of a god to even think it matters if someone believed in him or not. So I always wondered as a teenager if he create us to worship himself. So you can see why I don't follow religion anymore.  So why create free will while fully knowing the consequences of that action? It would be no fault but that which made it possible to happen. Not knowing every consequence of that would lead to questions of his omniscience and power. It would be like calling dolphins abominations because they have same sex interactions. It's silly in my opinion on logical reasons alone  Embarrassed

Though I do want to know how you have "blasphemous" individuals in relation to an omniscient deity. o.O

Learn to use the quote feature first. That shouldn't be to hard for someone who understands as much as you do.

The first quote is mine, the rest ain't

I am not getting into this thread in any serious manner as some don't seem to know what they are talking about and the rest are trying to have discussions without even the faintest of common beginnings.

Best of luck Jackel.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #171 on: February 21, 2011, 10:58:05 PM »

Quote
Come to my agora, Jackel.

I have already made a premise that we seek friendlier discourse Smiley

Now in regards to the rest of your post:

Quote
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
"The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy
"Blasphemy is irreverence[1] toward holy personages, religious artifacts, customs, and beliefs"

Now what I say may be blasphemous, or a case of blasphemy to your religion (anything not sharing it's view is), but for it to have any real meaning it must be validated, or substantiated by the horse itself. Aka the Existence of the GOD must be established for it to bare any kind relevance. Your argument could be considered blasphemous to other peoples religious beliefs. So it's pretty much a useless or moot argument to make :/ It's pretty much vilifying difference of opinion on these subjects being discussed, and assuming a difference of opinion or belief is "insulting, showing contempt, or lack of reverence for a GOD". The more extreme elements of Christianity take it a bit further and start comparing anyone being blasphemous to being evil, murder, a rapist ect. However, it would be egotistical or narcissistic of a god to even think it matters if someone believed in him or not. So I always wondered as a teenager if he create us to worship himself. So you can see why I don't follow religion anymore.  So why create free will while fully knowing the consequences of that action? It would be no fault but that which made it possible to happen. Not knowing every consequence of that would lead to questions of his omniscience and power. It would be like calling dolphins abominations because they have same sex interactions. It's silly in my opinion on logical reasons alone  Embarrassed

Though I do want to know how you have "blasphemous" individuals in relation to an omniscient deity. o.O

Learn to use the quote feature first. That shouldn't be to hard for someone who understands as much as you do.

The first quote is mine, the rest ain't

I am not getting into this thread in any serious manner as some don't seem to know what they are talking about and the rest are trying to have discussions without even the faintest of common beginnings.

Best of luck Jackel.

Edify us O' knowledgable one.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,485