For GS

[PKT_VOL]

Natural law, at its foundation, conforms to a priori reasoning. Therefore, the entire concept of self-creator, self-mover is beyond the realm of natural law; thus, it is supernatural.

A self-creator and self-mover is outside the realm of natural law due to a posteriori knowledge primarily, not a priori thought processes.

G1 cannot be disproved; of course, G1 includes the possibility of monotheism, polytheism, and pantheism. That said, though, the admittance of a supernatural force is a must for any but the most rigorous solipsist.

False.

 

[therealUT]

A self-creator and self-mover is outside the realm of natural law due to a posteriori knowledge primarily, not a priori thought processes.



False.

This will have to be a situation in which we agree to disagree.

 

[PKT_VOL]

This will have to be a situation in which we agree to disagree.

Possibly. Thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss.

 

[OJ]

Eat the flesh and drink the blood before it's too late.

 

[therealUT]

Eat the flesh and drink the blood before it's too late.

It is profaneness to attempt penetrating through these sacred obscurities; and, next to the impiety of denying his existence, is the temerity of prying into his nature and essence, decrees and attributes. -- David Hume

Proposition 1:
We must believe that there once was a human being (of whom reason tells us nothing) who has done enough through his holiness and merit, both for himself (with respect to his duty) and for all others (and their deficiency as regards their duty), to hope that we ourselves can become blessed in the course of a good life, though only in virtue of this faith.

Proposition 2:
We must strive with all our might after the holy intention of leading a life well-pleasing to God, in order to be able to believe that God's love for humankind (already assured to us through reason) will somehow make up, in consideration of that honest intention, for humankind's deficiency in action, provided that humankind strives to conform to his will with all its might.

In the end religion will gradually be freed of all empirical grounds of determination, of all statutes that rest on history and unite human beings provisionally for the promotion of the good...Thus at last the pure faith of religion will rule over all.

Kant

Eat the body and drink the blood and watch your morals decay.

 

[OJ]

What exactly is your agenda?

 

[NEO]

So to clarify you believe "something" created or set in motion creation but you're not sure what it was or if it even cares?

Am I correct TRUT?

 

[therealUT]

So to clarify you believe "something" created or set in motion creation but you're not sure what it was or if it even cares?

Am I correct TRUT?

Correct.

 

[therealUT]

What exactly is your agenda?

To focus persons on these two principles:

The Universal Imperative:
Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature.

The Practical Imperative:
So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.

As opposed to some notion of 'goodness' which simply boils down to establishing some relationship with a higher power so that said higher power will show mercy on you; basically, focus your actions on humans and not on what you think God is.

 

[gsvol]

1. A thought experiment: If the most trustworthy person you know comes to you and says, "I saw a ghost" do you then take on a belief in ghosts?

So the professor was teaching a class on the paranormal and announced that today's class would be on ghosts.

So He asked for a show of hands on how many believed in ghosts and about half the class raised their hands.

So he asked how many had seen a ghost first hand and aoubt a half dozen raised their hands and then he jokingly asked how many had had sex with a ghost and this one boy from Alabam in the back of the room raised his hand.

The professor was a bit taken back and asked the young man to come to the front of the room and stated; 'son, I've been teaching this class for thirty years and you are the first student I've had that said that he had had sex with a ghost.'

The Bama dude said; 'Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said goats.'

I also recommend Robert heinleins Stranger in a Strange Land.

I was a member of a sci-fi book club when I was younger, Assamof wrote some pretty good stuff, he is one of the more famous atheists.

I go to church because it is important to my girlfriend. I laugh quietly to myself as the priest recites his sermon, unknowingly, in the presence of a fallen angel.

The falen angel attends all services, you ain't him.

This will have to be a situation in which we agree to disagree.

Turning over a new leaf?

It is possible; it must take place in a supersensible manner, though.

MUST?

Why would one ask?
How would one ask?

To learn?
Humbly.

Indeed; hence, the supersensible notion of guilt.

Don't follow, why introduce the notion of guilt?

I am not in the business of reinventing wheels. This argument is drawn from my understanding of Aristotle, the Upanishads, the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, Augustine, Anselm, Scotus, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, and Lewis.

Lean to to thine own understanding has been said, how weaker is it to lean to the understanding of other men?

The character called Jesus is a philosopher and moral teacher.

But I thought you said there wasn't enough evidence to say that He ever existed?

Nontheless, to some He is the Son of God.

Even the false prophet muhammed gave him the status of prophet.

Aside from the handful of references to him in the Illiad, I have no further knowledge of Asclepius.

You might be interested in reading more of him.

Have you ever heard of the 13th sign of the Zodiac, the Snakebearer, the Healer?

I am one of the few who still hold on to the concept of knowledge as justified, true belief. To not believe in a God is to not know there is a God.

True but to know there is God is more than faith that there is God.

Einstein was a brilliant mathematician and physicist.

No doubt, and not only that he came out with some rather pithy philosophical statements.

Examples?

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
Ronald Reagan

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan

I know in my heart that man is good.
That what is right will always eventually triumph.
And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.
Ronald Reagan

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.
Ronald Reagan

No.

The what areas of knowledge do you believe exists?

How felicitous for them.

No doubt.

I have never been that fascinated by Taoist, Buddhist, or Confucian pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-theological writers.

There is nothing 'pseudo' about the philosophy of Lao Tse, that's about as sprofound as it gets.

Confucious (although he is more authoritarian that I like) has has influened more people than any other man in history.

You might be interested in reading 'The Art of Peace' by Morihei Ueshiba, the Founder of Aikido, the religion that is not a religion. Whether there is anything to what he says or not, (and there must be), he is a very interesting subject.

If it existed before I was born, I don't remember it; as to whether it will continue to exist after my body fails to perform its bodily functions, I do not know because I cannot predict the future.

I know that I existed before this life and am sure I will exist beyond it, about that there is little if any doubt, although I don't claim to be able to tell you what will happen in the next second.

I have no proof that there are any other spirits aside from my soul; my proof is internally a priori and self-evident and, therefore, it is intransitive and provides no proof for you.

Can you say 'egocentric?'

Agree though, there is no proving such things.

Good for you.

Thank you.

Without being the least bit judgemental and in all humility, keep your mind open to the possibility that the same may happen to you, just friendly advice.

I've been on some wicked benders before, too.

Me too, but that wasn't a drug induced incident, maybe that's why I drink so much, I already know more that I ever wanted to.

What was complicated about that?

The question is, can you simplify that?

Can you clarify this question? I am not sure what it is you are asking that my hobby is.

I just wondered whether those studies were meant to be a hobby or a vocation.

Are you found?

Yes.

Jesus found me and not I, Him.

I wasn't really all that happy about that development in my life but now I feel singularly blessed and eternally grateful.

(please excuse any typos.)

 

[slh1089]

2. Now, as to your statement, "that's why it's called faith", you are correct. I have not provided a proof, nor can a proof be provided, that G3 does not exist. I have simply demonstrated that G2 and G3 cannot be proven to exist; however, I have provided a proof that G3 cannot coexist with Evil and/or Imperfection.

I draw an issue with the use of "proof" in the bolded sentence. Its a rather strong word used for the argument you gave.

 

[therealUT]

I draw an issue with the use of "proof" in the bolded sentence. Its a rather strong word used for the argument you gave.

While, overall, I have simply provided a disproof for the proof of G3, one must explain away evil and/or imperfection if a perfect being exists.

 

[therealUT]

MUST?

An encounter with the supernatural cannot take place through the natural; it must, therefore, be supersensible, as senses only perceive and observe the natural.

To learn?
Humbly.

If this being is omniscient, then why do I need to ask (said being would already know of my needs, wants, anxieties, expectations, etc.). If this being is supernatural, then how, as a being endowed with natural faculties, do I ask?

Don't follow, why introduce the notion of guilt?

That is the only manner in which I think it is possible for that said being can communicate. Guilt is supersensible and provides insight into absolutes.

Lean to to thine own understanding has been said, how weaker is it to lean to the understanding of other men?

What?

But I thought you said there wasn't enough evidence to say that He ever existed?

Whether or not he was a historical figure, he is still a character in a book.

Nontheless, to some He is the Son of God.

And, to some, that is Thor...

Even the false prophet muhammed gave him the status of prophet.

And...?

You might be interested in reading more of him.

Have you ever heard of the 13th sign of the Zodiac, the Snakebearer, the Healer?

I have not.

True but to know there is God is more than faith that there is God.

How do you know? What is your justification?

No doubt, and not only that he came out with some rather pithy philosophical statements.

Philosophy is not simple statements; it is sustained, valid arguments which one bases on what that individual or said society sees as sound premises at the time.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
Ronald Reagan

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan

I know in my heart that man is good.
That what is right will always eventually triumph.
And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.
Ronald Reagan

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.
Ronald Reagan

Great rhetoric...not philosophical.

The what areas of knowledge do you believe exists?

1. Knowledge. There are no areas, no parts, no divisions. Knowledge is an absolute, just like truth and happiness.

No doubt.

You do know what 'felicitous' means, yes?

There is nothing 'pseudo' about the philosophy of Lao Tse, that's about as sprofound as it gets.

Confucious (although he is more authoritarian that I like) has has influened more people than any other man in history.

You might be interested in reading 'The Art of Peace' by Morihei Ueshiba, the Founder of Aikido, the religion that is not a religion. Whether there is anything to what he says or not, (and there must be), he is a very interesting subject.

I categorically disagree. Profound thoughts are not synonymous with philosophy; uttering "1,000,000" is not synonymous with doing math.

I know that I existed before this life and am sure I will exist beyond it, about that there is little if any doubt, although I don't claim to be able to tell you what will happen in the next second.

Hence, you do not know. You fervently believe.

Can you say 'egocentric?'

Agree though, there is no proving such things.

It is not more egocentric to say that I cannot trust absolutely in my senses and, therefore, I cannot know that others exist than to say that I can fully trust in my senses and therefore others exist.

In fact, in the latter sense one is actually esteeming their own abilities, which would fall more closely in-line with the definition of 'egocentric'.

Thank you.

Without being the least bit judgemental and in all humility, keep your mind open to the possibility that the same may happen to you, just friendly advice.

My mind is open.

The question is, can you simplify that?

No.

I just wondered whether those studies were meant to be a hobby or a vocation.

I would like to provide guidance to how our government decides to use our military forces in the future; the Phil. Religion angle is simple to sate curiosity.

 

[slh1089]

While, overall, I have simply provided a disproof for the proof of G3, one must explain away evil and/or imperfection if a perfect being exists.

There have been many attempts to explain this and some better than others. I, for one, am of the camp that it is hard, if not impossible, to try and use human reason to understand the coexistence of evil with an omni"everything" god (such as the Christian God). As you have stated multiple times, it is not possible to understand a supernatural event within the limits of natural laws; it is also just as improbable to begin to elucidate a being above our true understanding with logic based on natural laws.

 

[gsvol]

An encounter with the supernatural cannot take place through the natural; it must, therefore, be supersensible, as senses only perceive and observe the natural.

There was the visit of the angels to the tent of Abraham if you believe that.

If this being is omniscient, then why do I need to ask (said being would already know of my needs, wants, anxieties, expectations, etc.). If this being is supernatural, then how, as a being endowed with natural faculties, do I ask?

Exactly.

Naturally.

That is the only manner in which I think it is possible for that said being can communicate. Guilt is supersensible and provides insight into absolutes.

So you think.

What?

What, what?

Whether or not he was a historical figure, he is still a character in a book.

And so?

And, to some, that is Thor...

To others the Great Spirit.

And...?

And you didn't atribute that facility to Him.

I have not.

You probably would be interested in learning about that.

How do you know? What is your justification?

I would never be able to conveigh to you how that I know but I do, unless you also knew.

As for justification, I need none.

Philosophy is not simple statements; it is sustained, valid arguments which one bases on what that individual or said society sees as sound premises at the time.

I didn't calim that he was a philospher, I just said he made some rather phosophical statements.

Great rhetoric...not philosophical.

OK, but the best philosophical rhetoric since Kennedy.

1. Knowledge. There are no areas, no parts, no divisions. Knowledge is an absolute, just like truth and happiness.

From Latin science = knowledge.

How is science absolute?

It is ever evolving as our knowledge grows.

You do know what 'felicitous' means, yes?

I should, much of what I've leared about it has come the hard way.

I categorically disagree. Profound thoughts are not synonymous with philosophy; uttering "1,000,000" is not synonymous with doing math.

We can profoundly agree to diagree here, unless you still want to say you are profoundly right and I'm whatever you desire to label me as being.

Hence, you do not know. You fervently believe.

How can anyone know anything?

It is not more egocentric to say that I cannot trust absolutely in my senses and, therefore, I cannot know that others exist than to say that I can fully trust in my senses and therefore others exist.

In fact, in the latter sense one is actually esteeming their own abilities, which would fall more closely in-line with the definition of 'egocentric'.

In fact are you not trusting your own senses?

Hence; egocentric.

My mind is open.

Good.

No.

Too bad, so sad.

I would like to provide guidance to how our government decides to use our military forces in the future; the Phil. Religion angle is simple to sate curiosity.

So you work with the defense department?

I don't understand the 'Phil. Religion angle.'

I suppose you mean philosophical - religion angle but don't understand why you capitalise either.