This I Believe There is / is not a God

duga · 01-03-2010, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword

I didn't say converting was the aim of this thread. When I meant that your aim was to convert people I didn't even mean to sound as though I am only talking about religion. If what you want out of a debate is simply two people arguing until someone admits they are wrong then I think you are missing out on what an informal debate is.

What I am saying is that an informal debate goes beyond the other person admitting they are wrong. Even if they never change their beliefs it is still worth doing if you feel you can learn something.

As for the question of whether I have evidence that God doesn't exist, I don't have to have evidence. The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a god.

I don't care so much about the argument about whether God exists or not. I care more about why someone should believe/not believe in its existence.

couldn't be said better...debates rarely end with someone admitting they are wrong. however, having a debate introduces ideas and promotes understanding why the other person thinks they way they do. and maybe it can lead to some different trains of thought for both people. i can't stand a debate that turns into a personal attack, however. that is just ignorant.

as for me...i am agnostic, even though that is an incredible generalization of my beliefs. it implies i haven't taken the time to think about my beliefs, but that is not the case. i have my own theories on spirituality. i feel the universe is intelligent and everything is connected. even atoms and the particles that make them up have been shown to act with intelligence and purpose...so in a way...you could say that is god.

cardboard adolescent · 01-03-2010, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icarus_3

It's like I had an ephiphany today, and decided solipsism is the one true religion. It is a belief that only my mind exists and all else is an illusion, sort of like the matrix idea in the movie. The belief can't be proven or disproven anymore than any other religious idea, so I'm going to consider it true and try to walk in it. That means I am God! I created everything and put myself in this fake reality to entertain myslef and try to feel alive because I'm totally bored on the spirit plane where I am everything and know everything and am totally alone...very lonely so I created all you illusions to interact with me. Life is hell to me, as I suffer alone in my thoughts about this idea. No matter how many other illusions I interact with, I am still alone in my thoughts. I should have created humans with the ability to read minds, so I would feel all of you are real by reading your minds, but that would be an illusion too. I wish I could go into nonexistence, but I am immortal and can't die. That's why this world has so much suffering and pain, because it is a projection of my mind and I am suffering the pain of being alone. I don't even have a mate to reproduce with. I will always be alone, for I cannot reproduce after my own kind. That's the one thing God can't do. The nearest thing I could do was create this illusionary world...so interact with me illusions. Tell me something I don't know! Or am I saying all this for the benefit of you who is reading it. For if solipsism is true, then I am an illusion and you who are reading the right now are the only one that exists. I'm just giving you some hints about the nature of reality, which of course, you predestined I would do at this time for you by posting this message....

49% of all americans claim to have had a religious or mystical experience... HOLY FUCK THE SINGULARITY IS APPROACHING I DONT WANT TO BE ALL ALONE AGAIN

cardboard adolescent · 01-03-2010, 11:37 PM

of course, the paradoxical thing about solipsism is that it can be true for everyone

duga · 01-03-2010, 11:38 PM

what counts as a religious experience...i've hallucinated but it wasn't particularly religious.

favorite quote of all time from my man carl sagan:
"we are a way for the cosmos to know itself"

cardboard adolescent · 01-03-2010, 11:39 PM

it's one of those things where you know when you know

Inuzuka Skysword · 01-04-2010, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

it's one of those things where you feel you know when you know

Fixed.

cardboard adolescent · 01-04-2010, 06:56 PM

it's one of those things where there's no longer a difference between feeling and knowing

Inuzuka Skysword · 01-04-2010, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

it's one of those things where there's no longer a difference between feeling and knowing

Would you like to explain why? I don't think anyone can. You may believe in the "high narrow road" but it only exists if we throw away our standards of knowing,

What I would like to ask is why you are willing to make the exception. In other words, why is there any place where there is no longer a difference between feeling and knowing?

cardboard adolescent · 01-04-2010, 08:48 PM

there just is, i didn't decide anything. it's not something that can be explained. an explanation is a series of logical steps from the statement in question back to an axiom, which is ultimately unexplainable. why does x=x? why is a point indivisible? what is a point? if you define a point in terms of something else, you then have to ask, well what is that? ultimately you hit a zero-level where the mode of rational explanations no longer works, and it simply is what it is. and since reason breaks down at this point, if there is any way of "knowing" what that thing is, it has to be by "feeling" it.

i will admit that there is a positivist way out of this paradox--which is by saying a point is that which can make a line, and a line is that which can make a square, and so on and so on, so that it doesn't really matter what a point is, you come to understand that by the things it does. what this way of reasoning actually does though, is take that bottom-level ambiguity and spread it all over the entire system. although a line might be that which allows you to make a square, you have to realize that when you refuse to say what a line is in itself you also can't say what a square is in itself. it's just a clever mode of deferring the paradox.

when euclid started axiomatizing mathematics, he actually did something very clever. he said a point is "that which has no parts." that's another clever way of avoiding the paradox--give the simplest elements in your system an entirely negative definition. however, i would suggest that that mode of dealing with the paradox implies that your entire system is built out of... nothing. which hegel fully embraces, by the way

maybe one of the most obvious places where the difference between "feeling" and "knowing" breaks down is in trying to answer the question: "what is existence?"

Inuzuka Skysword · 01-04-2010, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

there just is, i didn't decide anything. it's not something that can be explained. an explanation is a series of logical steps from the statement in question back to an axiom, which is ultimately unexplainable. why does x=x? why is a point indivisible? what is a point? if you define a point in terms of something else, you then have to ask, well what is that? ultimately you hit a zero-level where the mode of rational explanations no longer works, and it simply is what it is. and since reason breaks down at this point, if there is any way of "knowing" what that thing is, it has to be by "feeling" it.

You don't need to feel the law of identity. The law of identity can only be argued by being presented as itself. How is that not a logical argument. It is the basis of what constitutes logic.

What is outside of logic in rationality is no longer thought. When one decides to make life decisions by rolling the dice, he is not using his consciousness to decide. That is why we say he is not thinking about the decisions, but instead gambling.

Emotions and feelings arise out of the subconscious. They are not conscious decisions. It is still a gamble to choose on feelings because you are negating your consciousness.

The bottom line is, the only way to think consciously is to use reason and logic. The axioms that are established here, such as the law of identity, are established because they yield progress. You can't build a bridge questioning the law of identity. In fact, if you truly question the law of identity then you won't be anything. You will be voluntarilly unconscious.

The plague of post-modern philosophy is that they overcomplicated things. "Overcomplicated" may be a bad word to use, but what I mean is that they propose to be free thinkers, and in doing so they abandon the actual thinking process. They question ideas such as whether consciousness can be proven without using your consciousness. They either ask for this to be proven or they just give up and say that it can't. It can't, and the answer most have is to fall back on abandoning their consciousness in the hopes of some sort of transcendence. However, reverting to the subconscious shows the exact opposite results. If there is any hope of transcendence it must involve the use of rationality and logic, the consciousness.

tl;dr: One can only express A=A in the way it is expressed, but that doesn't make it less true. If anything, the questioning of it only further suggests that we need to have axioms. Otherwise we fall into uselessness.

01-03-2010, 11:38 PM	#434 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	what counts as a religious experience...i've hallucinated but it wasn't particularly religious. favorite quote of all time from my man carl sagan: "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself" __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...

01-04-2010, 08:48 PM	#439 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	there just is, i didn't decide anything. it's not something that can be explained. an explanation is a series of logical steps from the statement in question back to an axiom, which is ultimately unexplainable. why does x=x? why is a point indivisible? what is a point? if you define a point in terms of something else, you then have to ask, well what is that? ultimately you hit a zero-level where the mode of rational explanations no longer works, and it simply is what it is. and since reason breaks down at this point, if there is any way of "knowing" what that thing is, it has to be by "feeling" it. i will admit that there is a positivist way out of this paradox--which is by saying a point is that which can make a line, and a line is that which can make a square, and so on and so on, so that it doesn't really matter what a point is, you come to understand that by the things it does. what this way of reasoning actually does though, is take that bottom-level ambiguity and spread it all over the entire system. although a line might be that which allows you to make a square, you have to realize that when you refuse to say what a line is in itself you also can't say what a square is in itself. it's just a clever mode of deferring the paradox. when euclid started axiomatizing mathematics, he actually did something very clever. he said a point is "that which has no parts." that's another clever way of avoiding the paradox--give the simplest elements in your system an entirely negative definition. however, i would suggest that that mode of dealing with the paradox implies that your entire system is built out of... nothing. which hegel fully embraces, by the way maybe one of the most obvious places where the difference between "feeling" and "knowing" breaks down is in trying to answer the question: "what is existence?" Last edited by cardboard adolescent; 01-04-2010 at 08:58 PM.

01-03-2010, 11:37 PM	#433 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	of course, the paradoxical thing about solipsism is that it can be true for everyone

01-03-2010, 11:39 PM	#435 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	it's one of those things where you know when you know

01-04-2010, 06:56 PM	#437 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	it's one of those things where there's no longer a difference between feeling and knowing