Total posts: 5,653
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
My plan was to unpack number three as the discussion went on a bit. I do think transcendent is the only logical conclusion when we see what it means to be a cause of the universe.
But that has to be demonstrated or at least stated as an axiom.
Why do you feel 1 and two are unproven?
For 1, because there are events which appear to be spontaneous (arise without a cause) such as radioactive decay.
For 2, because there is no indication that the universe has a begining.
What do you mean by prove to be exact?
That it's the conclusion of a sound logical argument.
Would that require 100 percent epistemic certainty?
No.
Honestly, I think there are good reasons to believe one and two
For example?
Created:
Posted in:
#1 and #2 are unproven.
#3 includes an attribute (the transcendent nature of the cause) that is not derived from the premises.
Created:
Posted in:
We don't need two threads. We can keep everything in one.
Current Quickfire
Quickfire Sign-ups
Speedrace (Civil War)
SupaDudz (Kanye West Quotes)
Quickfire Hopper
drafterman
Current Mafia
Sign-ups
Zaradi - D&D
In the Hopper
Virtuoso
Bullish (Memes of the 2010's)
SupaDudz- Total Drama Island
drafterman
Discipulus_Didicit - Star Control (no bastard mechanics)
Speedrace
Lunatic- Pick yer poison!
ILikePie5 - Bakugan or Riverdale
On Hold
warren42
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
Yeah, but this is a quickfire. It's to a full mafia game that blitz Chess is to a full game of Chess. You have to sacrifice something if you want a small, quick mafia game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
These are poetic ways of describing relationship with God.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I want to nail down God's existence before talking about any relationship with it.
I would like to move on to the portion of the conversation where you demonstrate or provide the justification that reality has the attributes you have assigned to it. Specifically (but not limited to)
- That reality can be pleased
- That reality has a will and conscious sense of timing
- That reality can judge
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am telling you what is meant by these things so as to help bridge the gap between what you think these things look like and the types and shadows of a deeper reality that these ways of describing point to.Because of the paradigm difference, anachronistic interpretation is inevitable. You might have to think a little more poetically than you are used to doing to see what I am trying to point out.There are certain difficulties that one invariably stumbles upon when we are using the medium of creation to witness to that which is Uncreated.Whatever The Ultimate Reality is, that is God.
I think you have adequately explained what you mean by God/Truth/Ultimate Reality.
I would like to move on to the portion of the conversation where you demonstrate or provide the justification that reality has the attributes you have assigned to it. Specifically (but not limited to)
- That reality can be pleased
- That reality has a will and conscious sense of timing
- That reality can judge
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If something exists, it has no existence apart from The Ultimate Reality. Therefore God has authority.
I don't see how the former implies the latter.
As God determines what is real and true, God's judgement is what gives existence.
Reality is not a conscious entity. It is not please. It does not make judgments. It makes no determinations.
You've made quite a lot of base declarations. I am still awaiting the justification part. Bridge the gap between your assertions and the justification of their alleged truth.If something exists, it ultimately comes from God. Therefore, whatever happens is God's will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Truth is not man made.
I agree with this.
The Ultimate Reality is God, and certainly has more authority than either you or I.
I disagree with this. Reality does not judge. It has no authority. It cannot be pleased. It is not a conscious entity with will.
If you deny the existence of my God, you are professing nihilism. If my God doesn't exist, nothing exists.
I deny the existence of your god. I do not profess nihilism. This is because I also deny that reality is God.
It is patently ridiculous to say, "The ultimate reality is ultimately unreal".If nothing is ultimately real, then our experience would be impossible.
I agree with this, too. I just disagree that reality is a God that judges, is pleased, and has any authority. This is yet to be demonstrated (to me).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But nothing to do with with "pleasing" reality or reality "judging" meMaybe not in the way that you think. Or maybe the way that you think isn't ruled out? I don't know. But it is no strange thing. No extraordinary claim that I am making.Of course we will all be judged by The Light of Truth, and on the last day, all darkness, deceit, delusion, falsehood will be exposed by The Light of Truth. Could you not say, based on the judgement of God's Word which is The Truth that what God's Law banishes must be displeasing to Him? The darkness flees from The Light, just as those who hate Him flee from His face.
Okay, but I don't see that reality has any of these qualities you have ascribed to it.
Truth is the highest good, and evil the natural consequence of deviation from The Truth.The way of the wicked shall perish, their faith and identity is with perishable things. Their walk blind, their mind darkened. The end of their faith is in created things. The Eternal Way is to be made divine through unity with The Uncreated Energy of God. To abide in The Eternal Way of Truth.The very light of heaven is the same fire of hell. The purifying flame of Truth.
Good and evil are human concepts. Reality - not being a conscience entity with a will - cares not for human-made moral compasses.
See, I already said that when people deny your God they aren't denying reality. They are denying that reality has the extra attributes you've assigned to it. Atheism does not imply nihilism.My position has and has always been that the vast majority of people who think they are atheist believe in a superstitious conception of God. That being the case, the atheist position is actually a negation of gods, not God.
It isn't the case. The atheist position is that any conception of god is false. Even yours.
Knowledge is a justified, true belief. Justify your belief and only then can it be known. Also note that "eternal" and "existing" are attributes.The Ultimate Reality is God, all other "gods" are only gods in a nominal sense.Let it be known that The Ultimate Reality is God, and God is not like created things that have attributes. God Is what God Is. The Eternally Existing One.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
So you're stepping up to host it? Cool! Can't wait.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yet, making choices that align with reality essentially lead to more consistent and positive results. While making choices that disregard reality consistently leads to subversion.This has everything to do with the relationship a child of God has with God.
But nothing to do with with "pleasing" reality or reality "judging" me.
Nihilism implies atheism, yes. But atheism does not imply nihilism. I am an atheist but I am not a nihilistAs our God is The Ultimate Reality, to deny our God is to profess nihilism. If you are not a nihilist, maybe you aren't really an atheist either.
See, I already said that when people deny your God they aren't denying reality. They are denying that reality has the extra attributes you've assigned to it. Atheism does not imply nihilism.
Created:
Posted in:
If anything, I think this thread is a prime example of the fact that people aren't actually serious about their being a presidency. People just want to drum up drama or fake controversy or just cause a fuss or have a laugh or whatever.
If people were actually serious about having a presidency there would be a presidency. People would have tied their shoelaces and put their pants on and held an election and elected a president. But no one seems actually interested in doing the things necessary to establish a presidency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Will I explained how it isn't. It is an analogy regarding a person's statement about God, not about God itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You say I assign properties to God, but the only thing I say about God is that The Ultimate Reality is God.
Well that's simply not true. You say a lot more than just this. For example you say that God can be pleased. Reality is not a conscious, sentient entity. It cannot be pleased. Reality does not have the property of being able to be pleased.
You have not demonstrated that reality has all of these qualities that you have assigned to it.
According to the way we understand things, to say there is no God is to say you are a nihilist."That there is no truth, that there is no absolute state of affairs—no thing-in-itself. This alone is nihilism, and of the most extreme kind."What Nietzsche says up there is very much in line with how we understand things. Nihilism is the denial of God. Atheism is nihilism.
Nihilism implies atheism, yes. But atheism does not imply nihilism. I am an atheist but I am not a nihilist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If reality did not.having timing, then you would not experience life sequentially. To say, "In God's time" is another way of saying, "It happens when it happens".
Not in the context of this conversation. Both you and ron have say "his" timing. That implies the timing at the whim of some conscious entity. Reality does not have this kind of timing.
But reality doesn't have spirit or cleansing power.Sure it does. Much in the way darkness flees from the light. Like wax before the fire, delusion is melted away by the fiery heat of Truth.
Oh, so it's just poetic metaphor?
True knowledge is not intellectual assent, but an experience. Intellectualizing thanksgiving is not knowing thanksgiving, rather to know thanksgiving is to be thankful. Much in the same way, The Truth can not be known by someone who does not walk in The Way of Truth.
Nice prose, but doesn't change what I've said: reality doesn't require faith to understand it.
But you can't "invite" reality into your heart or mind. It is a a thing, not a person or entityIf your heart and mind is directed towards The Truth, quite naturally you will find that your mindfulness towards reality will sculpt and shape you.The purer your heart, the stronger the presence of Truth is in your heart and mind.
Okay, but I still can't "invite" it into my heart or mind. It's not a person or entity. It doesn't "do" anything other than exist. It has no powers or will.
But reality isn't a person or entity that can be "pleased" or that can "humble" a person. It cannot be killed, rise, or judge people.Quite naturally, humble students are better than proud students. Much in the same way, those who think they know already have a hard time learning from and being purified by God. Those who approach God with the humility and reverence that a young child has towards a good parent receive a grace that cannot rest on the proud.
Okay, but it is not something that can be "pleased" or "humble" a person. It cannot be killed, rise, or judge people.
So there is quite the gap between "reality" and this thing you call "The Truth." There are a lot of attributes and properties in the latter not present in the former.As I hope my response reveals to you, the discrepancy is primarily a matter of paradigm.
Nevertheless, it is in fact a discrepancy. So I hope you keep in mind that when an atheist rejects your depictions of God/The Truth, they aren't, contrary to your claims, denying reality, they are denying that reality has the properties you have assigned to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
When I say "The Truth", I mean reality as it truly is.
Right, but we already have a word for that: "reality." When you create a brand new term, and make it capitalize, that indicates something special beyond that.
This assignment doesn't explain certain attributes that you assign to reality:
You say:
Ronjs gave the right answer when he said "His timing"
But reality doesn't have "timing."
You say:
the cleansing power of The Holy Spirt, which is The Spirit of Truth, works in you.
But reality doesn't have spirit or cleansing power.
You say:
That is really the faith that you have to have
But reality doesn't require faith to understand it.
You say:
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth
But you can't "invite" reality into your heart or mind. It is a a thing, not a person or entity.
You say:
You can't please God without faithIf you have pride, God will humble youYou cannot kill The Truth. It will rise again, and on the last day all will be judged by it.
But reality isn't a person or entity that can be "pleased" or that can "humble" a person. It cannot be killed, rise, or judge people.
So there is quite the gap between "reality" and this thing you call "The Truth." There are a lot of attributes and properties in the latter not present in the former.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You think God is offering you a service, selling you something, and that you can sit back and evaluate this offer as to whether it suits your preference.
Nope. The analogy has nothing to do with God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I mean that I don't know what "The Truth" is. It's like you're using the name of a character in a story I don't know anything about. Imagine me talking about "The Force" to someone with absolutely no knowledge of Star Wars.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I think you missed the point of the analogy. I was not comparing God to a bus driver. I was comparing the answer "God takes as long as he takes" with the answer "the bus will get here when it gets here." As in, those are both equally pointless and useless answers to the question at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you don't believe that The Truth is God, then you don't know what God is. I don't believe in whatever superstitious conception you have of God either.
"The Truth" has no semantic meaning to me, so I have no beliefs about what it is or isn't.
You can't please God without faith. That is just how it is. Extreme skepticism is not a virtue, quite the contrary, it keeps you from accepting what we mean by what we teach. You have to come to God like a child, ready to be taught. If you have pride, God will humble you. If you come with humility, there is grace.
Good thing I only talked about modest skepticism, not extreme skepticism.
The reason the faith takes the form it does is demonstrated by my work here. I speak very plainly about the faith, and it is still not believed.And so, all you get are parables because you won't accept the plainly spoken and lucid truth.The plain and lucid truth is that Christianity at the core is about loving The Truth, and living it.Because you can't accept this, all you get is parables.
It's almost as if this a wholly inefficient and ineffectual way to get believers.
There is no legitimate question or doubt about God's existence.
I have legitimate questions and doubts about God's existence.
The question is really, "Who is God?"The Ultimate Reality is God, and there is no reasonable doubt.
I have reasonable doubt.
And the thing is, if you love The Truth, you don't look at the world and think, "Oh, Things are this way, but it would've been better if it was different."This type of thinking leads to delusion. Making peace with the way things are in a great way is making peace with God.
I don't know what "The Truth" is to love it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Oh heavens no, that has nothing to do with our practice.
Take it up with Pascal, man:
"Bless yourself with holy water, have Masses said, and so on; by a simple and natural process, this will make you believe."
First of all, you have to understand that when we say heart, we are talking about The Nous.
I don't know what that is.
Then you have yo understand that The Truth is God.
I don't believe that.
The discipline has nothing to do with hypnosis or implanting ideas in the head at all for that manner, it is about SEEING CLEARLY. It is moreso about looking at the influences and passions that enslave us, and being freed from these things so that we can better live as an Icon of The Truth.
Whatever terms you want to put it in, your words imply an acceptance of belief and practice prior to validation of that belief. I don't agree to that.
I am not using the word "truth" arbitrarily. If you don't accept that I mean exactly that, it will only be confusing as you will be asking yourself, "What truth?". I mean, The Truth itself.
I don't know what "The Truth" means. I am only aware of logical propositions which can be true and false.
And directing oneself towards The Truth creates a very real "gravity" you could say. It creates movement. But more importantly, it opens you up, as Ron was saying to God so that the cleansing power of The Holy Spirt, which is The Spirit of Truth, works in you.If it sounds mysterious, it really is. It is something to be experienced. It is known through the experience. Just as a scientist who performs no scientific experiments is hardly a real scientist, someone whose faith is absent of works is dead. Functionally, no faith.That is really the faith that you have to have. That God exists. That if there is a way to see God, there has to be a right way.There is nothing unreasonable about Orthodox Christianity, there is just a lot there, and even the things we do that look strange or illogical to the uninformed observer have very real and good reasons behind them. Point being, much of what the faith is about is presented in such a way as to give the opposite impression.Why is this? It is to protect the faith. One can not come to the faith without charity and humility. The door is shut. All you will see is a bunch of weirdos wearing funny clothes burning incense with the thought creeping in your head "I know better than this".But if what I am saying is true, and I can only insist that it is, there is a great deal more to it than meets the eye.
Then I guess that just sucks for people with even the modest amount of skepticism or critical thinking. A shame that things would be designed in such a way. Seems like if I wanted people to avoid eternal torment and that outcome depended simply on them believing I existed, I wouldn't act mysteriously. I'd act openly and obviously. I wouldn't leave any question or doubt as to my existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Right, but we're talking about a religion whose members sat down and thought it was important to calculate the estimated year of birth of Jesus and base an entire year-system around it.
Then, a while later, decided the primary reason for fixing the calendar of months was so that Easter was in the right place.
I just find it odd, that given the importance of this kind of thing, that no body bothered to keep data on this stuff happening. Is it completely random or is there some sort of normal distribution at work here?
How long did it take for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Scripture has more authority than ronjs.
But it's his statements I am responding to and asking about.
Not to negate what he is saying.But this is an absurd question..."Among the billion or so Christians, who presumably have let god into their hearts and received a response, how long, on average, did that take?"I say that not to be disrespectful, but because it is an impossible question to answer.
If that's his response, then that's his response. It'd seem rather odd, that given the immense importance on achieving salvation, and the billions of people and thousands of years this has been going on that people wouldn't have bothered to collect even the most rudimentary of data.
Ronjs gave the right answer when he said "His timing"
Perhaps it is the most accurate answer given the available data, but it is hardly a useful one.
"When will the bus get here?"
"The bus-driver's timing."
I don't doubt that, through rote repetition, I can slowly alter my own system of beliefs to be consistent with Christianity. A form of self-hypnosis if you will. It's certainly the tactic proposed by Pascal.But I am giving you a better answer. Not better because it is more true, but better because it gives you direction.No one here is able to know whether you sincerely seek God. That is something only you can know. What I will tell you is that the faith is revealed in practice."Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"Orthodox Christian praxis purifies the heart. So as Jesus Himself said, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."Without orthopraxis, one cannot truly be orthodox.
I'm disclined to use this method since it can be used for any belief, regardless of veracity and I'd like my belief system to be as closed to reality as is possible. Unfortunately this requires some method of validation of the truth of a statement before accepting it as true, which is not being offered here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Imagine saying no PM exists
I didn't say that.
If the person that leaked you this information was a mod, but that would have to be validated.and then warning about displaying contents of a PM. By the way, the COC mentioned an exception of displaying mod PMs
Created:
Posted in:
Challenge: Provide canon evidence that Klingons are, on average, stronger than humans. Either by way of demonstration or a statement to that effect.
This is commonly accepted to be a fact among fans. Taking a look at references in Memory Alpha:
Klingons were larger and physically stronger than most species, they possessed a much lower tolerance to the cold. (VOY: "Displaced"; DS9: "Change of Heart")
Both of those references support the "tolerance to the cold" aspect, but make no mention of the strength part.
Compare this to Vulcans, who are explicitly stated to be three times stronger than humans (DS9: "Take Me Out to the Holosuite") are are shown performing feats of strength (such as when Spock punches in a computer terminal with his bare hands).
The closest I have been able to find is in Voyager, where a Vulcan proposes that a Vulcan would be better able to withstand Klingon mating practices than other humanoid species.
However, he doesn't explicitly say he is better than a human in this regard, and we have examples of human-Klingon bonds.
Breaking things down further:
The Original Series Klingons are just humans with bronzer. Not even the implication that they are, as a species, stronger than humans. More ruthless and warlike, sure, but not necessarily stronger.
In The Next Generation, they take on a more menacing appearance, despite being "friends." It is in TNG they this reputation for strength comes from, though never actually supported. We learn about their multiple redundant organs, penchant for live martial sparring exercises, and tendency to engage in a sort of "blood lust."
But, as you note, just about any trained human is able to hold their own against similarly trained Klingons.
I think the advantage that Klingons have over humans is primarily cultural. They enjoy fighting and don't really care who they are fighting with and they go to extreme lengths when fighting. Think Japanese in WWII. The Japanese weren't inherently stronger, they just had a different cultural mindset.
However, Klingons do have biological advantages. The are bigger on average than humans and the aforementioned redundant organs. This allows them to survive injuries that would be lethal to humans. They also clearly have superior endurance and stamina. Both of those combined could give the illusion of superior strength, especially on the long term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
Unfortunate. Why would maf block a messenger though?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Let me rephrase:
Among the billion or so Christians, who presumably have let god into their hearts and received a response, how long, on average, did that take?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Oh? How long does that usually take? I'm going on 3 decades almost. I hope he decides to do it before I die, since my immortal soul and eternal torment are on the line here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
All you have to do is sincerely invite Him in.
And then what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
I will provide screenshots of these PMs if all the mods involved can promise to step down if I show them
The laugh-ability of this proposal aside, I feel it necessary to remind you that it is against the CoC to post the contents of a PM without the consent of all parties to that PM.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, I know that Supa lied about his role and I probably would have pushed for his lynch as well. But that is the best scenario for scum and they would be the ones most vested in pushing that lynch. Oro was active more than usual last phase and was heavy pushing the Supa lynch.
Created:
Posted in:
Oh wow, I was able to actually sleep through the night without you guys doing something dumb. Excellent.
Created:
Posted in:
Also funny that Sing chastises Supa for lying about his role when Singularity literally claimed "cocaine"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
It would be LYLO but it's not like I knew town would be dumb and burn through all of its mislynches. It was a win win scenario because then we'd get confirmation of the theory without a waste of investigations or losing anyone we wouldn't miss.
Created:
Posted in:
This is the dumbest wagon in the history of Mafia. All the scum are probably on it.Singularity, Speed, Supa, Zaradi, Oromagi, Lunatic
Created: