thebeardslastcall Posted September 17, 2016 Share Posted September 17, 2016 Philosophers come here to learn and enhance there understanding of the world and reality. Donnadogsoth is here to master dissonance and trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherKev Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 *facepalm* I am a man of faith myself. However there is no logical proof for God, and that is precisely what faith is for. When natural philosophy gave way to the scientific method and we formalised logic and reason into it's modern form we birthed an incredibly useful mechanism for observing the world and understanding it based on reason and evidence. Faith is neither reason nor evidence, except to the person who has it. Now until a diety reveals itself and becomes subject to measurement and empirical observation you are not going to be able to convince anyone with logical proofs, as such is simply impossible, as the whole system relies on providing repeatable observable and verifiable results. Please be careful in discussions like these there is enough evil in the world going around that we all need to start pulling in the same direction. My position is that my faith is an aesthetic choice, that relates to my own personal attempts to grapple with my own mortality and fear of the unkown. Mixed in with a set of personal experiences that have lead me to my faith. However from a purely objective standpoint even those experiences are indistinguishable from a deluded mind. So I invite any atheist to merely regard me as a well meaning fool. In fact I would like to go further in that people shouldn't at any point hang their ideological hat on my experiences, or even what this or that sacred text says. I recognise better men and women than I have walked the earth without one drop of faith, and my overriding priority is to align myself with the good in humanity, not some half understood ancient book. I think my faith helps me personally in that aspiration, but I have observed that is not necessarily the case for other people. Which is why I advocate consigning religion to aesthetics, I may listen to a piece of music or read certain poetry to uplift my mood and better get on with living. Someone else may play a sport or sculpt. Faith exists in that category. This sounds like the same song I've been singing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 2. What could possibly have created redness, extension, being, and nonbeing, and all other categories and Platonic forms, as I as much as ask above, if not something on the order of a God? You realise that platonic forms dont exist, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 You realise that platonic forms dont exist, right? In Hegelian terms Platonic forms are "real," but don't "exist". Just as a monad (e.g. you or I) "exists" but isn't "real," to Hegel. So, that sense, strictly speaking I agree with you. Platonic forms don't "exist" in a Platonic realm, rather they are real in God's mind, just as their manifestations are real in ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troubador Posted September 24, 2016 Share Posted September 24, 2016 Well I am happy to join the choir BrotherKev! Dogdonnasoth, all you are doing is shifting the goalposts and playing with the definitions of words. The sad thing is it all comes down to your own faith in the end. Just be honest about this please! Can we unpack precisely why you want to persuade everyone to your position? Do you want to start a cult? What I find worrying about your rhetoric is not only are you making claims of God's existence you are also making claims as to god's nature. I can talk of my own personal relationship with divinity, and share experiences of it. However I cannot qualify that beyond my own experience. From those experiences I have inferred certain things, but my studies of various religious texts (and I have several), actually seem to skirt around the issue and the more they try to define and codify a divinity the further they move away from my own central experience. I'm finding reading your posts illicit the same reaction in me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosencrantz Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 Has anybody come up with a proof yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 25, 2016 Share Posted September 25, 2016 Has anybody come up with a proof yet? https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48120-what-isnt-a-concept/page-2#entry439960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosencrantz Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 That's not a proof but some sentences put together. Gödel attempted an ontological proof using modal logic. It suffers from the same mistake as all other attempted proofs based on necessary existence though http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 Well I am happy to join the choir BrotherKev! Dogdonnasoth, all you are doing is shifting the goalposts and playing with the definitions of words. The sad thing is it all comes down to your own faith in the end. Just be honest about this please! Can we unpack precisely why you want to persuade everyone to your position? Do you want to start a cult? What I find worrying about your rhetoric is not only are you making claims of God's existence you are also making claims as to god's nature. I can talk of my own personal relationship with divinity, and share experiences of it. However I cannot qualify that beyond my own experience. From those experiences I have inferred certain things, but my studies of various religious texts (and I have several), actually seem to skirt around the issue and the more they try to define and codify a divinity the further they move away from my own central experience. I'm finding reading your posts illicit the same reaction in me. The essential point I have to make is of man in the image of God. Do you believe that? Science tells us this is so, to the degree science is principled and so deals with principles, discovering, transmitting, and assimilating principles into society. That's what's at stake, man as a principled individual, mankind as a principled entity that is potentially immortal. Religions, philosophies, dogma, they all must bow before this idea that man is made in the image of God, or they are nothing but bestial relics. We can learn from studying beasts, true, but we do not base our society on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts