|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
posted December 02, 2007 10:01 PM |
|
|
sorry, my bad, i'm not clued into US politics.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2007 11:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
the constitution is a load of rubbish, it has rules about how if an Englishman can step on the American shores then they are technically allowed to kill them
Quote:
That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Huh??? That's taken WAY out of context. The only thing this can be referring to is the part of the declaration that basically says during time of war with the British (i.e. war of independence), any British citizen loyal to the crown would be treated as citizens of an enemy nation. There is no implication that they would be killed simply by setting foot on America territory. Except possibly if the British citizen was actually fighting on behalf of the British or involved in spying or espionage or something. In practice I don't know how this really worked.
____________
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted December 03, 2007 12:02 AM |
|
|
All that "evil" in the bible was reffering to a different time and period where slavery was ineviatable.
besides that we assume some parts of the bible are the most likely to be true because there is no alternative to say and the fact that it exists in a time where being literate was very very rare.
I didnt say all of it is true . Some is metaphorical some is dependent on the time and some exists in a way that has many different restrictions or loopholes .
Nontheless some of it makes sense. Just because its written that americans landed in america then it means its a fairy tale? ive never set foot in america ut i still believe it exists. Like that remnants of the time that passed there have been found like ancient pots /scrolls/heiroglyphs etc.
In the same spirit i only believe the planet mars exists because ive been told it does. Ive never seen it and most people on earth havent either. But its still supposedly common knowledge it exists. So why cant we believe that the bible isnt a way to measure what happened in that time and place.
Even if you still think its nonsense then tell me who exactly would bother to make a several thousand page book that within he restricts about 600 things?(if your jewish its around that but very few are relevent in our daily lives anyway)
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted December 03, 2007 12:08 AM |
|
|
Royal griffin you forget the fact that the bible is supposed to be the words of an eternal god (or of men guided by the eternal holy spirit)
So you can't really pin the ultimate laws given by the bible to a specific time frame...
Of course, you are right in what you say it was written at that time for that time, but if it were really written by god that wouldn't be so and as such that is my point.
Think about it. God gives permission to kill anyone who worships Molech, some other God who this God is very jealous (like a schoolyard kid)
But there is no mention of Allah or muslims or Islam in general, even though they are one of the most popular religions ever.
This is because it was written at a time when Islam did not exist, obviously.
But an eternal all knowing god would obviously know of this future religion, wouldn't he?
Quote:
Even if you still think its nonsense then tell me who exactly would bother to make a several thousand page book that within he restricts about 600 things?(if your jewish its around that but very few are relevent in our daily lives anyway)
Certainly not an omniscient and all loving god, that's for sure.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 03, 2007 05:22 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 05:32, 03 Dec 2007.
|
Quote:
All that "evil" in the bible was reffering to a different time and period where slavery was ineviatable.
besides that we assume some parts of the bible are the most likely to be true because there is no alternative to say and the fact that it exists in a time where being literate was very very rare.
You do realize you're practicly saying / admitting there the bible is outdated and no longer fit for our current time, right?
Quote:
I didnt say all of it is true . Some is metaphorical some is dependent on the time and some exists in a way that has many different restrictions or loopholes .
Nontheless some of it makes sense. Just because its written that americans landed in america then it means its a fairy tale? ive never set foot in america ut i still believe it exists. Like that remnants of the time that passed there have been found like ancient pots /scrolls/heiroglyphs etc.
So how does that proof anything? It proves that religion probably existed back then, and especially in an age where information and knowledge wasn't easily accesable, people probably easily clung to it yeah. But we aren't doubting there were religious back then. So what are you saying?
Quote:
In the same spirit i only believe the planet mars exists because ive been told it does. Ive never seen it and most people on earth havent either. But its still supposedly common knowledge it exists. So why cant we believe that the bible isnt a way to measure what happened in that time and place.
Hey if you want to believe some old guy saved every single species alive today on a single boat, feel free. But by my logic, a source containing retarded things rapidly loses credibility on anything it contains. The more since this particular book claims to be the word of god.
As for Mars, yes, you are right at the moment we don't know for sure that it is there. Likewise I can't know 100% sure America exists, or even looks the way I think it does. But those two things can be CHECKED and measured. You can't go back in time though to see if Jezus truly did walk on water and turned water into wine.
Quote:
Even if you still think its nonsense then tell me who exactly would bother to make a several thousand page book that within he restricts about 600 things?(if your jewish its around that but very few are relevent in our daily lives anyway)
Someone who needs a way to control a massive group of common people, keep them in check, and make them do what he wants them to do. Who just so happens to have narrowminded views on people and never heard of the phrase "Respecting someone's right to be different".
And if you can't believe "that would work", search for some stories on Sects in America. That's how it works, except on a larger scale. You will find it is ALWAYS used to surpress a select group of people (usually, the female), so the ones who made it can get away with more than they ethically should. Stuff about love and all that crap is all made around it just to fool suckers, in my opinion.
And yeah I know you're probably gonna say "People just use it that way, people are bad, the bible is still written by god" ... Hey, possible! But I find the idea that it was written by people themselves as a means to surpress the large masses a more logical explanation. If you can make someone pray to some almighty god because they believe you can speak to it, you can make them do anything you want, as long as it is "this god's wish".
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted December 03, 2007 06:14 AM |
|
|
[quote
You do realize you're practicly saying / admitting there the bible is outdated and no longer fit for our current time, right?
Yes. It desperatly needs different interpreations and changes to a point. Not i "we can change this thingy or this thingy" but if it says slavery is ok it isnt anymore and thats probably fine to ignore or change.
[So how does that proof anything? It proves that religion probably existed back then, and especially in an age where information and knowledge wasn't easily accesable, people probably easily clung to it yeah. But we aren't doubting there were religious back then. So what are you saying?
Quote:
In the same spirit i only believe the planet mars exists because ive been told it does. Ive never seen it and most people on earth havent either. But its still supposedly common knowledge it exists. So why cant we believe that the bible isnt a way to measure what happened in that time and place.
Im saying that because you cant see it doesnt mean its not there. But in this case reffering to history. As a matter of fact the whole post was kidna unrelated to god. Im talking about wars of the time and history of the period.Not matters of spirit but that the egyptians enslaved the jews, That babylonia existed etc.
Hey if you want to believe some old guy saved every single species alive today on a single boat, feel free. But by my logic, a source containing retarded things rapidly loses credibility on anything it contains. The more since this particular book claims to be the word of god.
It could easily be a metaphor for something else. Despite that theres nothing that says every species then was alive today. And theres nothing that restricts a very very large boat from holding many animals and therefore the animals evolving into more varied forms. Noone actually said when the boat saved the species.
As for Mars, yes, you are right at the moment we don't know for sure that it is there. Likewise I can't know 100% sure America exists, or even looks the way I think it does. But those two things can be CHECKED and measured. You can't go back in time though to see if Jezus truly did walk on water and turned water into wine.
I dont believe jesus did. But thats just because of my religion anyway. But as a better analogy look at history. Would you believe that the moors existed 1000 years ago? Or that the roman empire collapsed? We simply cant know but theyre still considered facts.
Quote:
Even if you still think its nonsense then tell me who exactly would bother to make a several thousand page book that within he restricts about 600 things?(if your jewish its around that but very few are relevent in our daily lives anyway)
Someone who needs a way to control a massive group of common people, keep them in check, and make them do what he wants them to do. Who just so happens to have narrowminded views on people and never heard of the phrase "Respecting someone's right to be different".
And if you can't believe "that would work", search for some stories on Sects in America. That's how it works, except on a larger scale. You will find it is ALWAYS used to surpress a select group of people (usually, the female), so the ones who made it can get away with more than they ethically should. Stuff about love and all that crap is all made around it just to fool suckers, in my opinion.
And yeah I know you're probably gonna say "People just use it that way, people are bad, the bible is still written by god" ... Hey, possible! But I find the idea that it was written by people themselves as a means to surpress the large masses a more logical explanation. If you can make someone pray to some almighty god because they believe you can speak to it, you can make them do anything you want, as long as it is "this god's wish".
Certainly better then anarchy, Despite that you fail to realize that the bible is a very very very old book (the old testament at least) from when people were still nomadic and few and there werent even that many villages around and that next to noone would even think about listening to such a rule as "No adultery" or no idols (statues you pray to etc) but i still accept that it may be true that it was used to control the masses at the time or later.And lets not even get into the narrowminded thing.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted December 03, 2007 06:27 AM |
|
|
The bible is not a historical record of events. It's not even meant to be. In fact it gets events dramatically wrong oftentimes and contradicts itself.
It is these historical records, matching with historical evidence that allows us to discover what actually happened. There is no historical evidence to support the bible.
There was no worldwide flood.
The world is not 40,000 years old or so.
Quote:
It could easily be a metaphor for something else. Despite that theres nothing that says every species then was alive today. And theres nothing that restricts a very very large boat from holding many animals and therefore the animals evolving into more varied forms. Noone actually said when the boat saved the species.
A metaphor for what, though? something else... doesn't seem like it really got the message across.
Besides, according to the Christian faith, species are immutable and do not evolve into more varied forms.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 05, 2007 05:49 PM |
|
|
@Corribus:
Quote:
You do know that logic is actually a mathematical discipline, don't you? Math doesn't change just because you're a monkey.
Note: math was invented by humans. We defined 'operators', rules and etc.. As you may or may not know, it is flawed. Why? Let's take the simple square root of -1. What do we get? We couldn't find an alternative to this so we simply name it 'i'. The problem is, of course, that it needs special attention. We wouldn't arrive here if we chose a different logic, but we didn't (because we don't know it). We do operations with 'i', we name them complex operations. Problem is, we do not 'understand' i the proper "numerical" way (like we do with the other numbers), we simply use it. Using something doesn't mean that it is understanded as well. That's why we call it the "imaginary" number. If you take a 'simple' intuitive example with i, you won't find one. On the other hand, addition is much better understood by us, even without math. We take an apple, and an orange, and have two objects in total. Not so with 'i'. For example, what does the number "5 + 2*i" apples represent? can we imagine such a 'number' of apples? nope, we can only be blind and use our rules we defined, apply them to our equations, and behold the result.
Example: how do you define the '>' or '<' operators (greater than, less than) for complex numbers? No matter how you look at it, you won't be able to find a 'good' and intuitive solution (like we have for real numbers). If, for example, we use the magnitute of the number, we won't be able to tell the difference between 1 and i, and hence, which is greater? Are they equal? Obviously not.. so how do we do this?
Maybe 'i' is not even the simplest solution either. maybe we are too blind in our "logic" to see this. Maybe we use the wrong principle with 'numbers', maybe we should've used something that didn't require special attention when we take the square root of negative things...
But if you think complex numbers are weird, imagine a world with infinite 'i's, how would it be explainable? Can it even be imagined? We can't even imagine more than three dimensions (or albeit, very few people can, which is again subjective), so how about an infinite directions? We can't imagine it, but we do use it. The problem is of course that using something doesn't necessarily imply understanding it. And I am not talking about understanding it as analogies from less dimensions. Yes we do use equations (drawn from analogies for our 3D, 2D or less dimensions) but we do not understand them, we simply use the rules we know from math and apply them. If we were to understand them, we wouldn't be using strange things like Complex numbers (which are "special" case for sqrt of numbers <0).
Another example would be, of course, the error function. We cannot imagine how 'it' looks in a formula because we aren't able to do it with our simple math operators. Instead, we call it erf (the error function). We know the derivative of erf(x), and that is e^(-x^2) and we can use that to define the function itself. But we do not understand it; same thing goes for trigonometric functions. We use them every day, we know how they look like (when plotted I mean), but we do not know their very definition. Instead, we approximate them. We do not know their core, but we simply name them 'sin', 'cos' to be happy. This is not understanding in my opinion.
Or the number "pi". We know how to calculate it with our operators (addition, multiplication, division, etc..), but this is only an approximation because Pi is irrational. But then, how can we 'represent' it without infinitely calculating it? Well we can simply name it 'pi' and job done, right? Do we understand it? Nope, we simply use it (as the ratio between a circle's curve and a straight line), but we do not understand it: the same as with the number 'i'. We do not understand it as a number (as we should).
All the operators in math are defined by us, which can be flawed (in fact I bet they are, because of the flawed 'unexplained' examples above). This means they cannot represent anything "exactly" and this 'exact' is actually required to understand something rather dull using it. We named them however we wanted without understanding them, but rather either approximating them (we took analogies from our number system) or simply accepting them and using them with our previous rules (for example: 'i').
The numbers, as we know them, are also defined by ourselves. Maybe that's the flaw where everything comes from. Because after all, complex numbers are really just numbers, but we cannot express them directly as we do not understand them as normal 'real' numbers. We cannot say what is the 'greater than' operator in this context since we do not understand them correctly.
Further, we do not understand division by 0. If you think of infinity, think again. Why not negative infinity? Who said 0 is positive? Maybe it's between negative infinity and infinity? Or is it really not a number? In fact, what is a number anyway? Isn't it just a symbol we use to express an idea? Then perhaps we can plainly use the symbol x/0 (x being our number) to represent this 'not-a-number' right? But do we understand it? hardly. Same goes for infinity. It is defined as an abstract concept in our minds (just like other things). Computers, for example, can't represent infinite things no matter how much they try, because well, they have limited precision, regardless of the amount of memory, it is still limited. Yet we grasp this abstract idea even if we do not understand the respective 'number', and call it + or - infinity (depends on the number's sign).
Now imagine what would happen if you take, let's say, the square root of a "ultra-complex" number (infinitely many 'coordinates', not just 'i'), and then divide by 0. What would the result be? Can you imagine it? Me neither. I know we can simply express it with symbols such as 'sqrt(x)/0' where 'x' would be that ultra-complex number, but we aren't actually doing anything else than just using it's definition. Just like God. After all, the word God, or Allah or whatever else (doesn't matter) is also just a symbol like any expression or letter or word. The idea is, do we understand it? I hardly think so, and here is the part where subjective 'logic' kicks in. I can have a different interpretation of the whole result (of that ultra-complex number divided by 0), and I mean a real 'understandable' interpretation, not symbols but rather the idea of the result. You might have a different one or perhaps none at all (since you might only rely on the numbers). But which is correct, you or me or someone else? Hard to answer, in fact, any answer would be biased.
Maybe some aliens would come and enlighten us that the respective number above actually represents the answer to the Universe's dimensions, and that we didn't understand it's meaning, we only used it in calculations just as stupid symbols. Will we understand that number then? Not a chance, and notice that the aliens have already done so (in this particular example obviously) because they think different. Maybe, if we are to understand that result, we have to change our thinking about numbers, math and operations...
any symbol we attribute in math (i, Pi, sin, cos, even the operators +, *, /, etc.) can have an infinitely complex understanding underneath and some of us are able to understand more of it than others (or less). The same as monkeys cannot understand calculus no matter how much they try, even if you speak their tongue (so to speak), and perhaps view it differently, 'abstract' from our point of view.
Quote:
Scientists DO often like to chose the most simple solution. Obviously. But there aren't degrees of "logicalness" to solutions.
That's the problem, logic and "simplicity" are subjective. Like I said, just because something looks simpler to someone else doesn't mean I also am of the same opinion (I may find it complex, and another solution might be simpler for me, but not necessarily for someone else). Simplicity is hard to define, because it is subjective. We could define it in terms of the majority of people but that would not be the best "scientific" idea (maybe it would be practical, but not necessarily CORRECT).
Quote:
Either a deduction is logical or it isn't. If it is, then it qualifies as a possible solution. If it isn't logical, it doesn't qualify. That's just basic science.
How do you define what is logical and how a deduction is logical or not? Well, we can always try and see it fail (in such a case it would be illogical), but then before we invented complex number ideas, we thought the square root of -1 was illogical since it contradicted our results (i.e nothing squared gave -1). You may take this thing for granted now, but keep in mind it hasn't always been so, and probably would have been better off at the beginning if we chose a different 'thinking' idea about math (not with numbers!!).
(i'm not saying I know such a thing!)
Quote:
Many solutions can be logically sound.
Yes many solutions can be logically sound, but how does one define "logically soundness"? I mean, if you ask different people, you'll probably get different answers. If a certain thing, as said above, contradicts our previous 'data' or information, then it isn't necessarily illogical, because if we were to use this principle, we still wouldn't be able to take the square root of negative numbers 
Quote:
Right.. but this isn't due to any subjectivity in the nature of logic. It is due to different bodies of information that is held to be correct by these different groups. An alien with a sufficiently advanced technology may very well be able to make a logical deduction that you and I cannot. You and I, have less knowledge, would either not be able to make a logical deduction at all or would make a very different one. But again that's not due to subjectivity in what constitutes a logical deduction, but rather is due to very different knowledge, which is fundamental to making a correct and logical deduction.
Knowledge is also subjective (at least to all species we know that exist), because a rock, for example, doesn't have knowledge. Aliens might not need 'information' as we do, the classic way. While this may sound insanely, imagine a world without time and space. In such a world, you wouldn't even need information "over time" because such a statement cannot exist. You wouldn't need to "go and get the information" because space isn't defined there.
Aliens would, for example, have a sixth sense, or a completely different thinking that enabled them to know certain things, or to understand different things simply because their "brains" function different and that means they don't 'think' the normal way.
actually, you can replace aliens with computers above, if they'll ever start to think themselves instead of just executing human instructions (biased toward our logic).
Quote:
Explain to me how the conclusion that God created the universe is a rational. Use the form of an equation, please.
Firstly I don't know how I can say something is 'rational'. Secondly, if I am to use the form of an equation, I would have to use symbols. So I can use a function like "God(x) = 0" which proves God? Obviously I'll have to define this function, but sometimes defining it cannot be done with our operators as we know from math. For example, we cannot define 'sin(x)', but we can only approximate it (since we define it's derivatives). Alternatively, we can define it with complex numbers, with Euler's formula. Problem is, that definition cannot be 'calculated' with normal operators as we know them, because computers can't handle complex numbers in any 'simple' way (we can use two 'numbers' to represent the real and imaginary parts, but that would mean we used a 'trick' since we should've used only one number!, and still wouldn't be calculable with that formula: that's why computers use Taylor series or other approximations instead!). Not only that, but before complex numbers were known (or in fact, before Euler), this Euler's formula did not even exist as a known solution, so that means we couldn't have expressed sin(x) 'exactly' in any rational way, we only expressed it as a symbol, just like God. We know it's derivatives (we know 'some' things about God), but that's it, we do not understand it (like we do not understand God!). So, perhaps I cannot even define this "God" function because I do not have the necessary 'operators' or 'ideas' about math people use, just as I couldn't express sin before complex numbers were 'accepted' either.
Thirdly, my opinion is, asking me to define God with a formula is like asking me to define the world with a formula. There may exist such a formula, but it could be infinitely long and therefore impossible to analyze or prove wrong. Do we need formulas to 'understand' that we have five senses? Such a formula, again, could be infinitely long and pointless to analyze.
Fourthly, Euler (perhaps false, I dunno, because I am not able to understand the formula's meaning) made a formula that he said proves God: from wikipedia (see the last paragraph in this section)
This can be a joke, but seriously I cannot prove this formula as false because he uses too many unknown symbols (at least to me).
And lastly, maybe God cannot be expressed as a formula as we know them. Obviously we could deduce a different mathematics if we actually "lived" in a different world, but we don't (or maybe not much), much as we can't imagine a world without time (and even space), or a world with 6D dimensions for space!!
I know we use mathematics and use higher dimensions, but we do not understand them, as I have said at the beginning. Not only that, but a different world (or even THIS world) would have a different space, not characterized by "dimensions" but rather but something else instead. Maybe this world is not how we think it is, not to speak of God. We simply draw analogies from what we see (i.e 3D space) and use them to "predict" higher dimensions and how they could look (in equations). The problem is, it's just an interpolation, because if we were to live in a dimensionless world, most of us wouldn't have been able to determine and think about a world with dimensions, not to mention to 'create' equations for such a thing! (some of us could be able to do it, depending on how it's defined)
maybe then, some guy comes and calculates faster than a computer. people would ask him how he does it, and he says that numbers and the like are too complicated and he thinks of them different, so he manages to calculate much faster with that thinking, which we don't understand. But this is another story.
I probably have gone again too deep into my philosophical thinkings, haven't I?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 05, 2007 07:20 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 19:24, 05 Dec 2007.
|
@TheDeath
Thanks for the detailed post. I have read it all, and I will reply to it, but today (and perhaps the remainder of this week) is too busy for me to do so immediately.
However, I did want to clarify one thing:
Quote:
Thirdly, my opinion is, asking me to define God with a formula is like asking me to define the world with a formula.
I do apologize for being unclear, but you mistook my meaning. When I said to show me how God is rational, using an equation, I did not mean in a mathematical sense, per se.
What I mean is this: you imply that the notion of God (i.e., that God exists) can be a totally logical (rational) one to you, but perhaps not to me, because logic is subjective. That I happen to disagree with, as I've already made clear, but we can ignore that for a second in order for me to probe your own thought process. Presuming that logic is subjective in some way, the very concept of logic still must obey some very basic rules, even if what is logical to one person is different from what is logical to another. So when I ask you to please state how God is rational - to you - using an equation, what I mean is, please state for me what is the logical, rational process that you use to come up with a "logical" belief that God might exist. By equation, I mean something like:
If A, then B.
Obviously, B in this case is "God exists". So, for instance, your "formula" might be - Because I see clouds in the sky, then God exists.
If God is rational or logical to you, as you've stated, then you should have no trouble writing for me, in a clear "mathematical" sort of way, HOW God is rational to you, so that I might understand you line of reasoning.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 05, 2007 08:02 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 20:06, 05 Dec 2007.
|
Quote:
What I mean is this: you imply that the notion of God (i.e., that God exists) can be a totally logical (rational) one to you, but perhaps not to me, because logic is subjective. That I happen to disagree with, as I've already made clear, but we can ignore that for a second in order for me to probe your own thought process. Presuming that logic is subjective in some way, the very concept of logic still must obey some very basic rules, even if what is logical to one person is different from what is logical to another. So when I ask you to please state how God is rational - to you - using an equation, what I mean is, please state for me what is the logical, rational process that you use to come up with a "logical" belief that God might exist.
I know it 'shouldn't' be a problem for me, but I actually don't know how I can explain it with words alone (as if you try to explain sin(x) with english). And perhaps I failed to state that I am only 'beginning' to find logic in this (well, I also call 'feelings' logical, at least what I experience, since no one can convince me of that ), but I am actually using more philosophical logic rather than concrete logic (if that's what you wanted). For me though, the fact that I have thoughts is a pretty logical reasoning to deduce that I have free will. If I were to be thoughtless then I shouldn't even be defined as 'myself' and control this 'myself'. If it is to be dispelled as an illusion, then that also makes me have a thought: that I doubt what I experience (i.e illusion). If I can choose which are illusions or not (i.e the illusion of free will) then that implies for me that I can think altogether, and therefore that I exist as someone who does think and experience the world around. It is an unique feeling, and I am certainly not talking about physical pleasures or pain, but more on the ability of having a conscience that makes decisions. This doesn't imply God of course. This is the part where I don't know how to explain. If you meditate and concentrate your mind outside the body (i.e "try" not to think of your body, or "ignore" it) you can usually achieve a very "cool" experience about yourself, something that I don't know whether I can explain or not. In particular, sometimes you just can't do it. I have vastly done it and only a couple of times really got that; the feeling is incomparable if you get it. Obviously meditation doesn't imply God either, but it does help to 'ignore' some of your obvious instincts (such as *most* of the body for example) which make it easier to estabelish a connection with the "abstract" reality (or God)... for God, the idea is much harder to be expressed.
sorry if this was not what you were looking for, but hey I even have trouble explaining calculus to some friends who don't get it (and think it's abstract illogical BS ), so perhaps I'm not the best writer anyway.
In a less 'spiritual' sense (which is far from 'logical' but nonetheless, the feeling talks for itself), I'd like to point out an alternative story for the so-called "logic" or rationality, I don't know whether it'll be what you're looking for.
In the philosophical way of things, all truth is blurred. It is impossible to clearly cut human thoughts into the logical and the not so logical thoughts. Or should I say that everything humans believe and say is colored by personal bias and values? There is no "truth" without an agenda: it is unavoidable as that is the human condition. This applies to "science truth" as well. "Science truth" is not pure in any sense as it is born from human actions. The very decision to conduct a scientific experiment is rooted in a value judgment which you cannot justify with pure so-called "logic". Or would you like to try to prove that the scientific view of "good and evil" (whatever that is) is the one and only right one? Scientists do scientific research because they believe that it is better to do so than not to.
Then "Logic" is about the form and structure of the truth?
If you make the value judgment and define the truth as the rational then aren't you actually implying that the form is more true and real than the content i.e., that the rules of logic are more real than the world they used to describe? After all if you know for certain the form and structure of the truth while not knowing for certain the content (the facts of how things are in the world) then aren't the things you know for certain in a certain sense much more true than the things you don't know with certainty? At this point your opinions would already make you more of a philosopher than a scientist.
As soon as one decides that logic decides what can or can't be true then he/she has already implied that logic is the truth to which all other others truths must be subservient, including scientific truth. If scientific truth relies on experimentation and observation then this leads to a problem. If one rejects every anomalous observation as unreal then he can hardly claim to believe in the scientific method. He may see himself as a rational person but then again isn't that kind of reasoning a bit circular?
maybe this clarifies the subjective thing. and the idea in subjectivity (maybe I shouldn't even call it subjectivity actually  ) is that logic is hard to translate to someone else's mind, at least exactly how you want it printed on their thoughts. The same as a deaf person explaining the color green to a blind person, and the blind person in turn explaining him the 'feelings' of sound. Note I mean explaining how the color looks like (and how the sound sounds like), not how it works. Let's just say that we'd like to explain it in such a way to enable the blind person (or vice-versa for the deaf person) to imagine the color correctly, and I mean just as you would imagine a green paper in front of you
in case someone misinterprets my idea, I put the 'deafness' to the person that can see intentionally so it works both ways
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted December 06, 2007 09:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
For me though, the fact that I have thoughts is a pretty logical reasoning to deduce that I have free will.
On my favourite side note:
It is not mutually exlusive, to have thoughts but no free will. Kind of.
Not lack of free will like a slave, who wants so do something else but simply can't, but lack of free will in that your actions were the effect elses decision. This may or may not coincide with what you wanted to do anyway.
I mean, you can think and decide to do something by "your free will", but that thing could also be ultimately determined by someone... (someone very powerful). Kind of like predestination.
edit:
Quote:
Obviously meditation doesn't imply God either, but it does help to 'ignore' some of your obvious instincts (such as *most* of the body for example) which make it easier to estabelish a connection with the "abstract" reality (or God)...
Why would God give us a body that he wants us to ignore?
That goes well and beyond the notion of free will.
Normally the answer is, our nature (mental rather than physical) is evil/bad/sux/ /greedy and as such God hopes that we can get over this and be good/noble/righteous/ /holy and join him in heaven. (this is forgetting the argument over whether or not god ultimately decides our thoughts... assuming he doesn't here)
But this our body! Something that we have NO control over in our birth! 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 06, 2007 05:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It is not mutually exlusive, to have thoughts but no free will. Kind of.
Not lack of free will like a slave, who wants so do something else but simply can't, but lack of free will in that your actions were the effect elses decision. This may or may not coincide with what you wanted to do anyway.
I mean, you can think and decide to do something by "your free will", but that thing could also be ultimately determined by someone... (someone very powerful). Kind of like predestination.
But if it was predestination I wouldn't have doubted it, would I? because since I have such thoughts in my head (like doubting my free will, for example), or even the idea of free will, then it also means that I can have it, no?
Quote:
Why would God give us a body that he wants us to ignore?
That goes well and beyond the notion of free will.
Normally the answer is, our nature (mental rather than physical) is evil/bad/sux//greedy and as such God hopes that we can get over this and be good/noble/righteous//holy and join him in heaven. (this is forgetting the argument over whether or not god ultimately decides our thoughts... assuming he doesn't here)
I wasn't ignoring it just because God wanted it, in fact I don't know if He necessarily wants ONLY that. And I said it doesn't have anything with God, but with free will (because well, the thoughts (i.e out-of-body thingy) is about will, not God ).
Ignoring your body is helpful sometimes if you want to concentrate on other things, obviously. It is kinda like ignoring the phone while you're working on something and concentrate on it. It is much easier to concentrate on that if you ignore the other thing. And obviously I said this doesn't imply God, but rather free will it is much easier to see the street's details if you're going on it rather than from the fifth floor
now reading my post it seemed a bit odd to me, so I apologize for my possible errors in my previous post (about this free will thing), maybe I have clarified it enough this time?
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted December 07, 2007 01:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But if it was predestination I wouldn't have doubted it, would I? because since I have such thoughts in my head (like doubting my free will, for example), or even the idea of free will, then it also means that I can have it, no?
No... I don't at all see how you even drew this conclusion.
You could have been predestined to have the idea of free will?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 09, 2007 12:45 PM |
|
|
|
Well not really, because the 'idea' of free will involves thinking about the "predestination" stuff. It's something like the 'creation' outsmarts the 'creator' (in this case, the creator = the Universe (atoms, energies, etc.), not God obviously ).
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted December 09, 2007 01:20 PM |
|
|
I see this as much less mutually exclusive than free will "choice" and an omniscient god...
(If that makes sense...)
Besides, god acts in mysterious ways 
It would be rather unmysterious of him to predestine someone to doubt predestination etc than say kill an unborn baby.
Though like Ricky Gervais put so well;
"'God works in mysterious ways....' is the theological equivalent to saying 'Hey! Look over there!' *runs away*"
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 10, 2007 11:31 PM |
|
|
I gave up believing in Christianity and I want those cultist fanatics idealogy of my going to hell if I dont believe to rot. It's been a couple of days now since I gave up and well, It's feeling a little more comfortable.
I'm writing better songs now, and hey, I just now found a metal pen promoting the drug lyrica (lyric).
Out of all the contradictions in the bible, what finaly led me to disbelief was the book of revelations.. I mean comeon Man faced insects, giant beasts.. Mightaswell have implemented Zues. But I'll tell you what (which also gets me ontop of beasts) since we read revelations we know what to expect. The beast will tell us we'll be safe with him so heres the deal... If some beast says trust him, dont. Instead repent cuz you know the bibles the real deal.
I'm willing to stake a lot on it not being real now. And whats so wonderful is my disbelief is so strong I dont fear not believing in it anymore.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2007 11:44 PM |
|
|
|
gallow
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Avenger
|
|
posted December 11, 2007 10:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Out of all the contradictions in the bible, what finaly led me to disbelief was the book of revelations.. I mean comeon Man faced insects, giant beasts.. Mightaswell have implemented Zues. But I'll tell you what (which also gets me ontop of beasts) since we read revelations we know what to expect. The beast will tell us we'll be safe with him so heres the deal... If some beast says trust him, dont. Instead repent cuz you know the bibles the real deal.
That "mand faced insects" is what he saw,just put yourself in that time Ist century,there wasnt all the technology we have in our days...what you expected him to write,"and i saw tanks,helicopters and airplanes.."? of course not,but is talking about that,a great war.And the beasts are the power countrys of the world.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted December 11, 2007 07:25 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 19:44, 11 Dec 2007.
|
DO not read this post unless your 18+
Quote:
Post not consistent with sig.
I dont say anything about Christianity in my post. I believe there's probably a God who is more like us than most people would give credit.
Quote:
That "mand faced insects" is what he saw,just put yourself in that time Ist century,there wasnt all the technology we have in our days...what you expected him to write,"and i saw tanks,helicopters and airplanes.."? of course not,but is talking about that,a great war.And the beasts are the power countrys of the world.
The only thing that is similar to a man face is a man face. Not tanks, helicopters ect. The only thing similar to insects are insects. To this day.
The bottom line is, from the book of revelations, if the bible is true, we know what to expect, and we know what to do when it happens. It's such an easy out thank God if it is true, and he gave us the Manual with simple instructions how to survive that era. Anyone who read it knows not to trust that beast. Anyone who reads this knows not to trust any beasts. If it comes down to man faced insects and a man saying trust me mark your hand, or something like that, believe in Jesus and ask for forgiveness.
Until that day I find Christianity to be a highly developed lie to keep people good these days. To keep them loyal to the crusades in the past. Its a successful attempt to give the people a false awnser like mesopotamias try, egypts try, joeseph Smiths try, The greek gods Zues, ect...
And heres a trivial question... Which bible came before the king James Version?
Finaly I say Christianity is not all a bad thing. People would have to invent a god if they had not already (or something like that)
____________
What are you up to
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted December 11, 2007 11:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I gave up believing in Christianity
Cool. want to be a jew? according to antisemitist newspapers we control all the worlds major countries and all of the economy and we all have mind control powers and have the most presidents in every other country etc.
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
