Repetitive post is repetitive. |
|
Give me what you got. |
|
Repetitive post is repetitive. |
|
This shit never happens to me
Your threads on god make less and less sense. |
|
Art
The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles
That was just...extremely repetitive. And...I disagree. |
|
Thanks for your thoughtful and respectful responses. Your considerable replies fully reinforce my dissatisfaction with dream views. The above was taken fro |
|
PMed you. |
|
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. |
|
I had never known moral perfection was a part of what defines the concept of God! In fact, I'd never included it myself. I never thought it was a necessary factor (and why should it be?). If there is an ultimate being that makes other realities and has absolute control over them if they wanted to exercise it, would that not still make them a god in the reference frame of the reality they created? |
|
Last edited by Invader; 04-03-2010 at 10:32 PM.
Because we didn't agree with it, we were making a mockery of it? |
|
Art
The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles
The conclusion doesn't strictly follow from the premises. You correctly alluded in the title that this is, at a crucial step, an inductive argument, and we can see the strong induction in action with the phrase "Therefore it is likely that..." Even if we grant you all of your premises (some of which are questionable, but I'll humor you for the moment), the most you are warranted to conclude is that "It is likely that God does not exist." That's a rather unremarkable claim. |
|
Then your conclusion is missing a very important qualifier indicating that fact. |
|
Shouldn't this be in the R/S thread? I mean, it would be hard for other people with other view points to reply without religion or spirituality being a part of their post? |
|
Your argument doesn't seem to flow well. Can you explain the premise: |
|
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
You conveniently cut out the bulk of my post in which I explained exactly why I disagreed with you/plato.stanford.edu. You can have discussions elsewhere, but if you are looking for a place where everyone is just going to agree with you then you are in for some pretty bland discussions. |
|
Art
The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles
You've really offended me, Xaqaria. |
|
Perhaps then you could actually address or explain what you agree/disagree with, instead of making this into a drama on who's mocking who. Not responding to something could mean anything as far as we know. I don't even know what your position on the OP is. |
|
The Ultimate Lucid Mp3 Thread Link
Mp3 track available here (02/2015): http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/36261038/file.html
I think an argument can be made that goes beyond inductive reasoning and probabilities. I have argued about this subject a ton on this site, and I stand by my earlier points. The existence of suffering is proof that no being with both infinite power and total goodness exists. An infinitely powerful being could make suffering completely unnessary. A totally good one would. Suffering exists, so if God is defined as a being that is both infinitely powerful and totally good, he does not exist. |
|
How do you know you are not dreaming right now?
One cannot think thoughts for someone else, nor can one redirect misdirected thoughts. |
|
The Art of War <---> Videos
Remember: be open to anything, but question everything
"These paradoxical perceptions of our holonic higher mind are but finite fleeting constructs of the infinite ties that bind." -ME
O'nus, will you accept me as your pupil? |
|
Saying quantum physics explains cognitive processes is just like saying geology explains jurisprudence.
That's the thing; I disagree but not entirely. I'm not sure, but I intuitively sense a disparity on it. This why I came here in the first place; to help clear up what it is I am sensing wrong about this. |
|
I think that the problem is with the assumption that something that is Divine has to be "good". "Good" and "bad" are relative man-made concepts. An animal dies in the forest naturally as food for another animal. Before the animal gets too sick or too old it becomes food. When it is being killed it is in shock which minimizes pain. Have you ever been in an accident and seriously hurt yourself and were in shock? You could be bleeding profusely and not even know it. In nature, everything is recycled and nothing is wasted. Life feeds on life. The lion kills the gazelle quickly and humanely. That is why you never find a dead animal in the forest. It is taken care of already. |
|
Being good involves being against unnecessary suffering. |
|
How do you know you are not dreaming right now?
This idea of goodness and badness is troubling. I think it depends on the frame of reference. Human beings have their ideas of what constitutes good and bad. We evolved to perceive certain actions as beneficial and others as detrimental, and the development of social customs carried down from one generation to the next had much to do with it. If one were to imagine a race similar to ours but who could reproduce faster and warred with others of their kind more openly, they may have developed notions of violence and pain that they feel are good in nature. Their frame of reference would not be our own. And to an omniscient being? Does anyone have the faintest clue of what that should feel like? To be aware of every whirring electron popping in and out of existence in the universe, every lightwave, the position of every spec of matter in relation to all other specs of matter still in this universe? Not with the combined conscious minds of one billion Earths could this be simulated. Not with a trillion. How phenomenal would that be? |
|
While I agree that we can argue the very definition of God that this is arguing, it does no good for the common religions of today. The most common theistic religions will argue that God is loving and omni-benevolent, not amoral. In this case, we cannot simply cast away the definition of God in this argument and change the direction of the deontological argument - it is crucial for the pertinent religions in which would most likely reply to this. |
|
Bookmarks