Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it."
Who do you buy it from and what do you do with it once you have it in your hand?
And how do you know if it is a fake?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
A so-called "design-first approach" suffers from the anthropomorphic fallacy. Ontologically calling "the big bang" "god" does absolutely nothing to imply that "god" has anything resembling human "consciousness".No it's not because science would have a design-first approach. It also means that consciousness rather than matter is fundamental which has many implications.
Deism gives us zero insight into "god(s)" "intentions" or "motives".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Then.... then we'd need a snappier name for it?
Perhaps, "the thing that made the things for which there is no known maker"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
you've said so before and I still don't go for it!
(IFF) Truth requires Fact (AND) Fact requires indisputability (THEN) Truth requires indisputability.
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If I purchase a share of stock in the New York Times company then I am not liable for whatever debts it might owe, my maximum loss is the amount that I've paid for that piece of stock.
Shell companies are not publicly traded.
You are comparing apples and tricycles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
How likely is it that EVERYONE has the truth? About zero.
The definition of Truth requires Fact and the definition of Fact requires indisputability.
Therefore, if a statement or assertion is disputed, it cannot be considered a Fact and as such, cannot be considered True.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
...we all must adhere to the same moral precepts nevertheless.
Do you have any hint of what these "moral precepts" might be?
Do you think they might be universal or do you believe they might be specific to each particular time and place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Maybe religion is not intended to have predictive or explanatory power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Thank you.I'll run it by Mike. It'll be task #859,393 on his to-do list, heh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Undeleted but struck-through posts would also serve as examples of what is unacceptable. That would be my choice. Obviously offending posts may have to be doctored to mangle anything that can't be public, but deletion just creates mystery and conspiracy theories.
I would like to be able to compare the actual enforcement (banning/censoring) to the "COC/rulez".
For example, we can see that certain members are currently banned because their name is showing a strike-thru (mark of shame), but I'm not sure how or if anyone can tell why this happened to them or when they might be back (unbanned)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
(IFF) "NTURTTGgTS" (Noumenon, The Ultimate Reality, The Truth, [G]god, The Source) is true (a logical necessity) (THEN) what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I dont know what you mean when you say deism is functionally equivalent to atheism. You mean the world will continue as is with no supernatural intervention?
Yes.
Deism offers absolutely zero moral or practical prescriptions.
Deism offers absolutely zero evidence to distinguish Marduk from Zeus from Vishnu from "YHWH" from Nanabozho.
Deism is not "a bridge to theism".
Deism is functionally identical to atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
A member quickly expressed their preference for post deletion. Short of threats or doxxing, I am against post deletion, personally.
Perhaps some indicator (other than deletion, perhaps even a note saying "post in violation") could be added to posts that are considered in violation?
Without some explicit indicator or flag or label or note or strike-through, the bad behavior could easily appear to be accepted practice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I agree.Or they could just delete content that breaks the rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Moral realism is calling.
(IFF) "moral realism" is true (THEN) what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Truth certainly makes a better God than these vain imaginings and false gods.There is one True God.Why compromise?
(IFF) "NTURTTGgTS" (Noumenon, The Ultimate Reality, The Truth, [G]god, The Source) is true (a logical necessity) (THEN) what?
The "NTURTTGgTS" does not tell us how to act. It cannot tell you right from wrong. It has absolutely no explanatory power.
The "NTURTTGgTS" sounds like it would be a very boring companion. These other gods seem like oodles of fun!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, not pretending to eat the body of Christ at all. Certainly eating it. Certainly drinking the blood. But, you know, that is part of the mystery. You are right though, it is wrong of me to talk about. In fact, when we partake of the eucharist during the liturgy, the choir sings about not speaking of these mysteries! It is likely because of this accusation of cannablism. I am certainly in the wrong here.
(EITHER) your church wafers and wine contain human cells and dna (OR) jesus christ was a golem comprised primarily of wheat and grape juice.
Please choose one or the other.
That all said, I don't think reducing something to a chemical process removes the mystery of experiencing it.
Understanding the chemical processes of our brains makes our behavior more predictable.
A mystery has no explanatory power precisely because it has no predictive power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I wouldn't say logic is bad, but I can see how you can use logic to justify just about anything.It is good to be a reasonable person, but reason isn't an end in itself.Logic certainly shouldn't be taken as an idol before The Truth.
When you say "The Truth" do you mean, "NTURTTGgTS" (Noumenon, The Ultimate Reality, The Truth, [G]god, The Source)?
Because "NTURTTGgTS" is perfectly logical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I think a more explicit indication that action was taken against the poster for violation of the site rules might be in order.Once a post is flagged and a mod addresses it a note is in the place of the flag. That's all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Ok, that sounds fun. Can I join a local chapter?Animism is more of a belief system than a religion but I am an animist so yes I believe it is legit. You don't need a god in animism. Yes Pantheism, Jainism, Buddhism, Satanism or any non god practice would be legit if for no other reason self discovery while keeping yourself in perspective of the universe and eternity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But the point is, we don't pretend to be cannibals.
Didn't you just say, "...we are literally eating the body and blood of Jesus Christ..."?
And the other even bigger point is that in the end, an attitude of gratitude will do much to serve you. God gives grace to the humble, but resists the proud. Practicing thanksgiving requires humility.
Expressing gratitude does have measurable positive psychological effects (by raising serotonin levels in the brain).
No "mystery" required.
Created:
Posted in:
A logic zombie is someone who blindly follows logic no matter how ridiculous the conclusions may be.
For example, you can't just blindly follow logic into idiotic beliefs like determinism and solipsism. These are obviously intellectual black holes with no utilitarian value whatsoever.
A logic zombie is just a person who can't face reality and who won't be honest with themselves.
A logic zombie is someone who never takes personal responsibility for their actions and instead blames logic for their moronic and misguided attacks on well established and incontrovertible truth.
You can't depend on logic for everything. People know deep down what is right and what is wrong. You know the truth. You just need the courage to face the facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Man does not live by bread alone, but by The Word that proceeds from God.Who is The Son of The Trinity? The Word of God.Everything was created by and through The Word of God.So when we eat the bread and drink the wine, we are literally eating the body and blood of Jesus Christ as The Word made Flesh.That sure is a lot of mystery there. It has to be that way.So recognizing that we rely of The Word of God is how we are thankful.Really, every meal should be eucharist. That is why we pray over and bless our food. Keeping God always in our thoughts is how we pray unceasingly. Life really should be eucharist.And I can certainly say that one of the most life changing decisions I ever made was to make the entire month of November Thanksgiving. I never stopped. Now every day is thanksgiving. I am a great deal better off for it.A lot of mystery there.
The more you try to explain it, the less appealing it becomes.
If you love "mystery" so much, you really should stop trying to ruin it for everybody.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Perhaps some indicator could be added to posts that are considered in violation?Wait why does "reports have been handled" mean "mod approved"? Poly was temp banned for two days following that post.
Without some explicit indicator or flag or label or note or strike-through, the bad behavior could easily appear to be accepted practice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Not sure what the big deal would be if it is. Doesn't negate the gods that exist now.
But the real question is, who has the best god?
The answer is here - https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3v5yui
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Is a mystery something to be understood or solved, or is mystery an experience? A priest once told me that it was the later, and I took it as something very profound.
I agree that "mystery" is an experience (Qualia). A "mystery" is not a measurable thing or event or property of matter (Quanta).
Can we Quantify Qualia? Sometimes we can and sometimes we can't, but it makes sense to me that we should at least try.
Eucharist means "thanksgiving". It is considered a holy mystery of the orthodox faith. Is thanksgiving something to be solved or understood? No, it really is something to be experienced.
Middle English eukarist, from Anglo-French eukariste, from Late Latin eucharistia, from Greek, Eucharist, gratitude, from eucharistos grateful, from eu- + charizesthai to show favor, from charis favor, grace, gratitude; akin to Greek chairein to rejoice [LINK]
However, the term "eucharist" as it is used in modern times is "a ritual in which followers pretend to commit cannibalism".
The less you explain it (protect/preserve the mystery with arcane terminology), the more appealing it seems.
Created:
Posted in:
Everything that is considered a "mystery" or "sheer opinion" is, in-fact, PERFECTLY LOGICAL.
The "mystery" is simply a consequence of Private Axioms.
Before Democritus, people believed the weather was (fundamentally) unpredictable and reasoned it was subject to the (mysterious and inscrutable) personal whims of the gods (which were also presumed to be fundamentally unpredictable).
Democritus figured out that, with proper data, weather can be predicted.
Democritus identified the Axioms of weather patterns.
Pythagoras observed the natural world, very carefully, and noticed (among other things) that musical notes that "sound right" are comprised of strings that have particular proportions relative to each other.
Pythagoras did not invent music of course, he did not even invent the idea of instruments, but he devised an occult (secret) system that he only shared with his most trusted acolytes (and even murdered those who might share this occult system with the uninitiated or his rivals, the followers of Cylon), this occult (secret) system applied, not only to music, but to nearly all observable natural phenomena. Those lucky few who knew the code were better able to predict outcomes than everyone else.
The code dispelled the precious "mystery".
The physical world always functioned according to logic, but the axioms were unknown and therefore the physical world appeared to be "unpredictable".
Pythagoras identified the Axioms of nature.
It seems insane that so many seem to love and protect the "mystery" (appeal to ignorance) so much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
My dad is a deist. He believes "god" died when the universe began.
Deism is the belief that God created the universe, but does not interact with it.I'd say a Deistic being "created" the universe with perfect planning and perfect execution so no further ad-hoc modification would be needed.A perfect "god" is incapable of making "mistakes" that need to be "cleaned up" like Noah's flood and Sodom and Gomorrah (what a horrific mess!!).Naturally this denies the incarnation. It also denies God's omnipresence.Actually "god's" omnipresence (in a Deistic framework) is a logical necessity. A Deistic being would necessarily "create" the universe out of itself and within itself.It's probably a dualistic heresy.Substance dualism is logically incoherent.Deism is monism.
I would like to point out that it would be, not only an anthropomorphic fallacy to say "god died" (or even "lived"), but also, and more importantly, (the implication that god does not exist is) a logically impossible conclusion. (IFF) god = big bang (AND) big bang = the sum total of all possible energy in existence (THEN) the big bang still exists today, it is still happening, and everyone and everything is part of it (THEREFORE) because energy exists, god necessarily exists (at least ontologically based on the axioms presented, which approximate Spinoza's proof, Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
An eternalist universe (option O in the above list) supposes that what we can observe is cyclical.The only alternative you've offered that hasn't already been said is an eternal universe. All evidence points to the Big Bang so this isn't a good alternative. The other theories all fall under either chance, free will, or physical law.
All energy condenses into a tiny super-dense singularity, then expands until heat death, then condenses again, then expands again, rinse and repeat.
All of these so-called explanations suffer from the same critical problem.
They all have no explanatory power (predictive power), and as such, are indistinguishable from either random or no explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Hard polytheism: the belief that gods are distinct, separate, real [please define what you mean by "real"] divine beings, rather than archetypes or personifications of natural forces. Hard polytheists reject the idea that "all gods are one god." [but did they possibly all come from the same source?]Omnism: all religions [excluding animism and pantheism?] contain [unverifiable, unfalsifiable] truths, but that no one religion [except Omnism and Syncretism] offers all that is [unverifiable, unfalsifiable] truth.
This sounds interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Not sure what the big deal would be if it is. Doesn't negate the gods that exist now.
Atheism doesn't "negate the gods" either, simply not being convinced is not itself evidence of non-existence.
Deism is a bridge that atheists should be able to cross because Deism is functionally identical to atheism.
Deism moves the conversation forward to the good bit, "which gods are the most believable?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Excellent point. We can only be 100% positive that, "we don't know everything".Do you claim that we have discovered all the applicable physical laws? If not, then how can you possibly eliminate physical laws as an explanation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Have you tried the Religion forum?Do you know where I might find either sort of person? Do you think they would debate with me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Which defintion of God has no evidence either way? And I think we understand the term "evidence" differently.
What is your "best evidence"?
The Teleological (anthropomorphic) fallacy?
The (purely semantic) Ontological argument?
The (sample biased) Rare Earth Hypothesis?
Spinoza wrote an airtight logical proof of god, but somehow I don't think you'd agree with his deductions.
Why would you quibble about the term "evidence" when you can just SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
He is saying that the laws themselves are traceable back to a point at which they all broke down. That is intrinsic to the laws themselves, and not any external agency. An explanation as to how these laws originated is not offered.
An explanation as to how these laws originated is beyond our epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I almost think of God as a set of car keys.A jingle jangle jingle. Everyone focus on god.God doesn't exists.Yes he doesNo he don't.Does toDoes notBut he is real .No it ainfIsIsn't.And this continues on and on.Everyone talk about .Focus on god.
Well stated. It's merely a distraction, a red-herring, an attempt to derail intelligent discussion.
Deism cuts to the meat. (IFF) Desim is True (THEN) what? [crickets].
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
If the Big Bang wasn't brought into existence by free will, then there must (not necessarily) be an infinite regress of preceding causes that led to up to the Big Bang.
Given an infinite amount of time (nothing could ever happen, XENO'S PARADOX), any action that has a greater than 0 chance of occurring will inevitably occur.
One this action inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials that led up to the action (only if those "trials" are verifiable using logic based on verifiable evidence). By doing this, the entire event has a quantifiable beginning (only if it is verifiable).
The problem is that given an unlimited amount of time, something that can happen inevitably will (and yet, at the same time, nothing can possibly happen). This gives you an infinite chain of events (there can never be an "infinite" anything, much less a "chain of events") that all have quantifiable beginnings (only if they are verifiable) to them which is logically absurd. The only (not the only) way around this is if an action occurred by free will (free-will is a human EMOTION, not a logical necessity or a verifiable fact) - in that case the event will not have a quantifiable beginning (if we cannot verify an event with logic and evidence, it cannot be quantifiable).
Either A "chance" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or B "physical, verifiable causes" - VERIFIABLE, can be eliminated as a primary factor (logically), but not as a potential secondary or tertiary (or potentially hundreds of bobaquinchillions) hidden variables, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or C "the human emotion we call free-will" - UNVERIFIABLE scientifically, logically FALSIFIABLE able to eliminate this as a conceivable option (maybe a human caused the cosmos with the aid of non-linear-non-local causality), has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation - If FREE-WILL is a hypothetical primary cause of the cosmos, FREE-WILL itself must be "uncaused" and would therefore be indistinguishable from random
Or D "quantum flux" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or E "noumenon" - VERIFIABLE, can be confirmed as a primary cause (logical necessity) and has zero explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or F "we have no flipping idea" - VERIFIABLE, and yet has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or G "dark energy" - Indirectly VERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power
Or H "magic" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or I "Nanabozho" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or J "Marduk" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or K "Zeus" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or L "Pangu" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or M "Brahman" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or N "pure imagination" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or O "eternalism" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or P "string theory" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
Or Q "M-brane theory" - UNVERIFIABLE, UNFALSIFIABLE unable to eliminate this as a conceivable option, has no explanatory power, indistinguishable from either random or no explanation
I'm sure you get the idea.
An unfalsifiable hypothesis is not strengthened by arbitrarily eliminating imaginary alternatives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Either A, B, or C or D or E or F or G or H or I or J or K or L or M or N or O or P or Q or R or S or T or U or V or W or X or Y or Z.
Not A or B.
Therefore, C or D or E or F or G or H or I or J or K or L or M or N or O or P or Q or R or S or T or U or V or W or X or Y or Z.
The OP shows how chance and physical necessity result in mathematical and logical contradictions WHICH are only valid as they relate to our human experience and the ability of our minds and senses to directly or indirectly corroborate. ANYTHING categorically beyond our ability to experience may or may not be subject to our INDUCTIVE (Humorous Hume) conclusions. It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Some event must begin in a non-quantifiable (fundamentally unobservable) way, which leaves free will (magic) and (only hypothetically) excludes chance and physical necessity.
An unfalsifiable hypothesis is not strengthened by arbitrarily eliminating imaginary alternatives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I am ever so glad to hear that.Negative, no offense taken, even in the slightest
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
@TwoMan
Infinite regress is logically impossible. If time were to travel back infinitely it would logically never be able to reach the present.[LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
This is not how deductive reasoning works.I'm doing a process of elimination. If chance and physical laws are excluded, this leaves free will as the best explanation at this point.
Number one, you have no way of eliminating "chance" and or "physical laws" as hypotheticals.
Number two, even if you did, "free-will" is an obvious non-sequitur.
You might as well credit "magic".
Magic explains everything. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Well stated.It does not follow that an event occurring, or having a beginning, implies a choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
You seem to be taking offense.Why are you reiterating this? I found it unnecessary the first time as well. That's why I addressed the implication, rather than the obvious literal
I am merely stating facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
How do you personally imagine our relationship with natural law? That may be helpfulGravity is natural law.Gravity (natural law) does not need to be enforced by a government or police force or any human agents or mechanisms whatsoever.
Another example of "natural law" would be if you designed an unbreakable lock.
You would never need to pass a law stating, "if you break an unbreakable lock, you will face a hefty fine and up to six years in prison".
Because, the lock either is unbreakable, or it isn't. No law enforcement required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
If I am wrong, which I am not, just say so please. It appears to me, at best, you were reading into something that isn't there. I probably will not have time to play with this until after Christmas, and I am very busy. I'm not debating with you, if you haven't noticed. We are going to need some mutual respect if we are to have this conversation
Only you can explain your intention.
If you refuse to explain your intention, then it is merely your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
The pledge of allegience is religiously neutral.
Would you be happy with "One nation, under some unspecified number of possibly hypothetical gods, indivisible..."?
Or how about, "One nation, under Zeus, indivisible..."?
Or perhaps, "One nation, under Allah, indivisible..."?
Many (if not most) people read (capital G) "God" as "YHWH", do you disagree?
Don't you think we should be more specific, you know, in order to avoid confusion/conflation?
Who has the best god? The answer is here - https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3v5yui
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Can I win with one of those?
Are you expecting to debate with someone who either believes "an appeal to ignorance" is a perfectly valid justification or are you expecting to debate with someone who is unable to clearly identify absurd (logically incoherent) statements?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
The pledge itself is not legally binding. It is however, constitutional, not irrelevant.
"As the 9th Circuit recognized, there is a strong argument that the Pledge violates the [first amendment] Establishment Clause under the endorsement test as well as Lemon. This is true, not in spite of, but rather because of, the Pledge's primarily patriotic intent. As an affirmation of citizenship, the Pledge defines membership in the political community. As amended in 1954, the Pledge refers to a particular belief, monotheism, that many people—not only atheists, but members of religions such as Buddhism—do not share. This official reference to a single God may well strike nonbelievers as an act of exclusion..." [LINK]
The pledge is not a legally binding document.
The only reason "under dog" has not been removed, is specifically because it is sufficiently vague.
If schoolchildren were expected to read, "One nation, under YHWH" every single day, you can bet that would've been struck down immediately.
The only "cover" christians have for "under dog" is DEISM. The ridiculous assumption is that DEISM is somehow magically compatible with their personal superstitious belief in "YHWH".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You are thinking in a legalistic sense, which is not how we think.Playing the blame game is fundamentally in opposition to a heart of forgiveness.You who are corrupted by the excommunicated church see the church as a courthouse. That isn't the Orthodox view. We see the church as a hospital. And this legalistic mindset would be seen as a sickness to be cured.
This sounds nice.
So the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't tend to go around telling people they're going to hell for breaking the rules?
Do they have any strong views on things like birth control, abortion, gay marriage, and or recreational drug use?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
I didn't think your response to my statement towards mopac made any sense. It's not a deep message
You are entitled to your opinion.
Created: